accession which was only valuable in so far as it swelled the body and increased the lustre of the church.*

It has been too hastily asserted by some historians, and too readily admitted by others, that the expectation of the Millennium, or Millennium. presence of Christ on earth to reign with his elect, was the universal opinion of the ancient church. The fair statement of that much-disputed question appears to be this :-Eusebiust informs us that Papias, among certain parables and sermons of the Saviour, and other seemingly fabulous records which he professed to have received traditionally, said, that there would be a thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, during which Christ was to reign bodily upon the earth; in which I think that he misunderstood the apostolic narrations, not penetrating what was mystically spoken by them; for he appears to have been exceedingly limited in understanding (upòs Tov voiv), as one may conjecture from his discourses.' The historian then proceeds to attribute the general reception of this opinion among ecclesiastics, and particularly by Irenæus, to their respect for the antiquity of the man.'‡ To Papias, then, we may attribute the origin of the belief. It was first adopted by Justin Martyr,§ next by Irenæus, and connected by both of them with the resurrection of the flesh. But the passage of the latter|| plainly declares that there were some in the church, in divers nations and by various 'works, who, believing, do consent with the just, who do yet endeavour to turn these things into metaphors; which proves that even the orthodox were divided on the question at that early age, though the names of the disputants have not reached us. The first distinguished opponent of the doctrine was Origen, who attacked it with great earnestness and ingenuity, and seems, in spite of some opposition, to have thrown it into general discredit; and, probably, we shall not have occasion to notice the opinion again until we arrive at the tenth century.

Dr. Whitby expresses his belief that the Fathers who adopted that doctrine received it from the traditions and notions of the Jews;' and he proceeds very truly to assert that that error will not invalidate their authority in any thing delivered by them as witnesses of what they

To give some idea of the nature of Christian literature in this age, it may be worth while to mention the subjects of some of the most celebrated productions-On Temptations -The Baptism of Heretics-Promises-Chastity-The Creation-The Origin of EvilThe Vanity of Idols-The Dress of Virgins-The Unity of the Church-CircumcisionClean and Unclean Animals-The Lapsed, or those who had fallen from the Faith during Persecution The Millennium; besides numerous books against heretics.

H. E. lib. iii. c. 39.—On this important subject see Whitby's excellent Treatise on the Millennium,' at the end of vol. ii. of his Commentaries.' This obscure doctrine was probably known to very few except the Fathers of the Church, and is very sparingly mentioned by them during the two first centuries. And there is reason to believe that it scarcely attained much notoriety even among learned Christians until it was made matter of controversy by Origen, and then rejected by the great majority. In fact, we find Origen himself, in his Prolegomena to the Canticles (69 B.), asserting that it was confined to those of the simpler sort;' and, in his Philocalia (c. xxvi. p. 99) he directly declares that the few (rss) who held it did so with such secrecy, that it had not yet come to the ears of the heathen.... In all fairness, then, we must consider the opposite declarations of Origen and Eusebius either to have been applied to different parts of Christendom, or to qualify each other: always recollecting that the latter is confined to ecclesiastics, while the former extends to all classes.

† The words are these-πλὴν καὶ τοῖς μετ ̓ αὐτὸν πλειστοῖς ὅσοις τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν τῆς ὁμοίας αὐτῷ δοξῆς παραίτιος γέγονε, τὴν ἀρχαιότητα τἀνδρὸς προβεβλημένοις· ὥσπερ οὖν Εἰρηναι καὶ εἴ τις ἄλλος τὰ ὅμοια φρονῶν ἀνεπέφηνεν.

6 Dial. cum Tryph.

Adv. Hær. 1. v. c. 33.

have seen, or declared to have been then the practice of the Church of Christ.' In these points, indeed, consists a great portion of the direct value of their works. But they are also greatly, perhaps principally, useful to us, as they prove, by numerous quotations, the early existence of the books of the New Testament as we now read them, and their reception in the primitive Church.*

CHAPTER IV.

Persecutions of several Roman Emperors.

Claims of Roman Paganism to the character of tolerance-examined-Theory of pure PolytheismRoman policy-Various laws of the Republic-continued under the emperors-Mecænas-Remarks-The ten persecutions-how many general-That of Nero-its character-Of DomitianThe grandsons of St. Jude-The epistle of Pliny to Trajan-His answer-Real object of TrajanLetter of Serenius Granianus to Hadrian-Antoninus Pius-Marcus Antoninus-Gibbon's partiality-Real character of this persecution compared with those preceding it-His principles and knowledge, and superstition-His talents and virtues-Connection of his philosophy and his intolerance-Commodus-Decius-His persecution-accounted for-its nature-Valerian-Martyrdom of Cyprian-Persecution of Diocletian-Its origin and motives-Influence of Pagan priesthood-Progress of the persecution-Its mitigation by Constantius, and final cessation at the accession of Constantine.-General Remarks-Unpopularity of the Christians-accounted forCalumnies by which they suffered-Their contempt of all false gods-Change in the character of their adversaries-Philosophy-Excuses advanced for the persecutors-their futility-General character of persecuting emperors-Absurd opinions on this subject-Effect of the persecutions→ upon the whole favourable-For what reasons.

CERTAIN writers have industriously exerted themselves to display the mild and tolerant nature of the religion which prevailed in the Roman world at the introduction of Christianity; and then, when its seeming claims to this excellence have been established, they have placed it in contrast with the persecuting spirit which has occasionally broken out from the corruptions of our faith; insomuch that some persons may possibly have been persuaded that there was some latent virtue in that superstition, which Christianity does not possess. We shall not here pause to show, what none can seriously deny, that the intolerance of Christians, like all their other vices, is in spite, and not in consequence, of their belief; but it is worth while shortly to examine the pretensions of Polytheism to one of the virtues in which we are most disposed to exult, and which we are accustomed to consider most peculiarly our own. The religion called Polytheism means the worship of many gods.' Now the observation which first occurs to us is this-that, when the number of gods is not limited, the easy reception of an additional divinity does little more than satisfy the definition of the word; it is not the endurance of a new religion, but the slight extension of that already established. The intrusion of one stranger would scarcely be noticed in the numerous synod of Mount Olympus; the golden portals were

*The Apologies for Christianity, published by the early Fathers, however imperfect as specimens of reasoning or even as representations of religion, were probably, at the time, the most useful of their labours, not only because they brought Christianity into notice, and challenged examination, and put forward some of its leading excellencies, but also because they publicly assaulted the tottering temples of Paganism, and exposed to irresistible contempt and contumely its origin, its rites, its morals, and its mythology. And those Apologies were very numerous-to those of Justin, Athenagoras, Tatian, Melito, Quadratus, Aristides, and Tertullian, already mentioned, we may add others by Clemens Apollinaris, and Theophilus of Antioch.-Mosh, G, Hist. c. ii. p. ii. chap. 3. Fleury, 1. iv. sect. 4, &c.

ever open-useful virtue or splendid vice gave an equal claim to admission; and the policy or servility of Rome bowed with the same pliancy to the captive gods of her enemies or the manes of her imperial tyrants. This was not a virtue, but a part of Polytheism; the new deities became new members of the same monstrous body; they assisted and sustained each other; and the whole mass was held together by ignorance, and animated by the gross spirit of superstition. It seems, indeed, that a Pagan statesman, who may have permitted additions to the calendar of his gods, deserves no higher description of praise than that which we should bestow on a pope, who has been zealous in the canonization of saints. For one idol will presently become as holy as another idol; nor could there be any reason why Jove should scorn the society of Serapis, since their respective divinity was founded on the same evidence, and their worship conducted on the same principles.

Such is the real theory of pure Polytheism. But we should be doing it much more than justice, if we were to confine ourselves to its abstract nature, without mention of the political uses to which it was converted ; and which, indeed, subjected it to so much restraint and limitation, that we shall be unable to discover in its practice even that ambiguous virtue which some have supposed to be inherent in it.

The belief or infidelity of the statesmen of antiquity, who were left to wander over the fields of conjecture, with no better guide than reason, may have varied in individuals, according to the understanding, or the passions, or the wishes of each; but those were certainly very rare, who admitted into their closet the various and irrational worship which they encouraged in the people. They supported religion only as one of the easiest means of governing; and valued devotion to the gods as they supposed it naturally connected with obedience to man-a just supposition, in a case where the gods were little removed from the nature, and generally tainted with the vices, of humanity. Our short inquiry into the manner in which the ancients wielded this engine of state shall be confined to the History of Rome, as being immediately connected with the subject of the present chapter.

Cicero (de Legibus, c. ii. s. 8.) gives us the following extract from the most ancient laws of Rome. Let no one have any separate worship, nor hold any new gods; neither to strange gods, unless they have been publicly adopted, let any private worship be offered; men should attend the temples erected by their ancestors,' &c. From Livy (b. iv. c. 30.) we learn that about 430 years before Christ orders were given to the Ediles to see that none except Roman gods were worshipped, nor in any other than the established forms.' Somewhat more than 200 years after this edict, to crush certain external rites which were becoming common in the city, the following edict was published, that whoever possesses books of oracle, or prayer, or any written act of sacrifice, deliver all such books and writings to the Pretor before the Calends of April; and that no one sacrifice on public or sacred ground after new or foreign rites.' But it may seem needless to produce separate instances, when from the same historian (b. xxxix. c. 16.) we learn, that it had been customary in all the early ages of the republic to empower the magistrates to prevent all foreign worship, to expel its ministers from the forum, the circus, and the city, to search for and burn the religious books (vaticinos libros), and to abolish every form of sacrifice except the national and established form.' The authority of Livy is confirmed by that of Valerius Maximus, who wrote under the emperor Tiberius, and bears testimony to the jealousy

with which all foreign religions were prohibited by the Roman republic (b. i. c. 3.). That the same principle, which had been consecrated by the practice of seven hundred years, was not discontinued by the emperors, is clearly attested by the historian Dio Cassius* (p. 490-2.). It appears that Mecanas, in the most earnest terms, exhorted Augustus 'to hate and punish' all foreign religions, and to compel all men to conform to the national worship; and we are assured that the scheme of government thus proposed was pursued by Augustus and adopted by his successors. Now, from the first of the passages before us it appears that all right of private judgment in matters of religion was explicitly forbidden by an original law of Rome-which never was repealed. We know not what stronger proof it would be possible to adduce of the inherent intolerance of Roman Polytheism. The four next references prove to us that the ancient law, subversive of the most obvious right of human nature, was strictly acted upon during the long continuance of the commonwealth. The established form of Paganism might not be violated by individual schism or dissent; the gods whom the government created the people were compelled to worship according to the forms imposed by the government. Under the early emperors the same was still the maxim of state; and if the influx of idolaters from every nation under Heaven made it difficult to preserve the purity of the Roman religion, that religion became more domestic and (let us add) more Roman by the successive and easy deification of some of the most vicious of mankind.

These few lines may suffice for the present to disprove the plausible theory of the tolerance of Paganism, and they may lead us, perhaps, to discover the true reason why the worship of Christ was forbidden in that city which acknowledged the divinity of Nero. At least, we shall have learnt from them, that the religion which Christianity supplanted was very far from possessing the only point of superiority which its admirers have ever claimed for it. And we shall not forget, in the following pages, to direct to the religious system of Rome some portion of the abhorrence which is usually confined to the individuals who administered it.

Hitherto we have followed the progress of Christianity through nearly all the provinces of the Roman empire, and some countries without its limits, as if we had been attending a Number of triumphal procession. The less pleasing duty remains to persecutions. describe its difficulties and its afflictions. And in so doing

it is not easy to ascertain the precise path of truth, entangled as it is, on one side, by the exaggerated fictions of enthusiasts, and perplexed, on the other, by the perversity of scepticism.

Early, though not the most ancient, ecclesiastical historians, followed by many moderns, have fixed the number of persecutions at ten; and if we thought proper indiscriminately to designate by that name every partial outrage to which Christians were subjected from the reign of Nero to that of Constantine, perhaps even this number might be considerably extended. On the other hand, Gibbon has so carefully palliated the

* In the year U. C. 701 the temples of Isis and Osiris were destroyed by order of the Senate (B. 40.).

+ Mosh. Gen. Hist. Cent. i. p. i. ch. 5. Idem de Chr. Ant. Const. Sæc. i. sect. xxvi. The number of tenpers ecutions was an invention of the fifth century, derived from arbitrary interpretation of prophecy rather than historical evidence. Lactantius, in the fourth age, enumerates only six. Eusebius specifies no number, though he appears to mention nine. The same number is adopted by Sulpicius Severus, in the fifth century, who prepares his readers, however, for the infliction of the tenth and last by Antichrist at the end of the world ; from his time ten became the popular computation.

guilt, and softened down the asperity of those successive inflictions, that in his representation not one of them wears a serious aspect, excepting that of Diocletian; though he admits that some transient excesses may be charged upon Nero, Domitian, Decius, and perhaps one or two others.

Differing in many respects from that author in our view of this portion of history, and animated, perhaps, by a more general and impartial humanity, we are still willing, in this matter, to make some concessions to his opinion; and though other occasions to prove the sincerity and constancy of Christians were abundantly presented, yet we are not disposed to impute the shame of deliberate unrelenting persecution to more than four or five among the emperors; but in one important respect our estimate of these events will still differ from that of the philosophical historian, as we shall bestow a much greater share of attention on the conduct of Marcus Antoninus. Our reasons will appear in the progress of the narrative.

The persecution of Nero was the first to which the Christian name was subjected, and the best account which has reached us respecting it Nero. is that of the historian Tacitus, which we have translated in a

former chapter. From his description it appears, that the sufferings of the Christians did not originate in any evil that had been committed by them, nor even in the general calumnies which blackened their character,* but in a specific charge, which was notoriously false, that they had occasioned the destructive conflagration so generally attributed to the madness of the Emperor himself. The nature of their tortures is related, and the very spots particularized on which they were inflicted. But their duration is not mentioned, nor the extent to which the persecution prevailed (if it at all prevailed) in other parts of the empire. The fact, that it arose in the first instance from a charge which was necessarily confined to the inhabitants of Rome, is certainly not a conclusive argument that it might not afterwards spread beyond the boundaries of the city; and yet both the words and the silence of Tacitus are such as indirectly persuade us, that the calamity, which he is describing, was both local and transient. The imperfect account of Eusebiust throws little more light on these questions, which have in vain divided the opinions and exercised the ingenuity of a multitude of critics. For our own part, if that were sufficiently proved which is continually asserted, that the persecution lasted for four years, until the death of Nero,§ we should very readily admit the probability that it was general. But whatever uncertainty may rest on this point, the expres sions of the Pagan historian unhappily convey sufficient evidence that the assault was exceedingly destructive and attended by every circumstance of barbarity.

Much difference has also existed respecting the laws supposed to have been enacted by Nero against the Christians, and their continuance or

*Suetonius, Vit. Neronis, cap. 16., mentions the same event, in the midst of some trifling details of sumptuary restrictions, in these few words- Afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novæ et maleficæ.' But we must follow the circum stantial narrative of Tacitus.

Euseb. H. E. lib. ii. c. 25.

In this question, which involves the historical accuracy of Tertullian, compare the reasoning of Semler (sæc i. cap. 6.) with that of Mosheim (Gen. Hist. Cent. i. p. 1. ch.5.) The forgery of the Lusitanian inscription, according to which Nero 'purged that province from the new superstition,' is now universally admitted.

In the year 68. Mosh. de Re. Christ. ante Const. sæc. i. sect. xxxiv.