one or other of those two ranks. I have neither inclination nor interest to engage in a controversy which I had considered only in an historical light; but I have already said enough to show, that there are more traces of a disingenuous mind in Mr. Davis, than of an episcopal order in the Epistle of Clemens.

VIII. Perhaps, on some future occasion, I may examine the historical character of Eusebius; perhaps I may inquire, how far it appears from his words and actions, that the learned bishop of Cæsarea was averse to the use of fraud, when it was employed in the service of religion. At present, I am only concerned to defend my own truth and honour from the reproach of misrepresenting the sense of the ecclesiastical historian. Some of the charges of Mr. Davis on this head are so strong, so pointed, so vehemently urged, that he seems to have staked, on the event of the trial, the merits of our respective characters. If his assertions are true, I deserve the contempt of learned, and the abhorrence of good men. If they are false, ***

1. I had remarked, without any malicious intention, that one of the seventeen Christians who suffered at Alexandria was likewise accused of robbery. Mr. Davist seems enraged because I did not add that he was falsely accused, takes some unnecessary pains to convince me that the Greek word iσvkopavтnon signifies falsò accusatus, and "can hardly think that any one who had looked into the original, would dare thus absolutely to contradict the plain testimony of the author he pretends to follow." A simple narrative of this fact, in the relation of which Mr. Davis has really suppressed several material circumstances, will afford the clearest justification.

Eusebius has preserved an original letter from Dionysius bishop of Alexandria to Fabius bishop of Antioch, in which the former relates the circumstances of the persecution which had lately afflicted the capital of Egypt. He allows a rank among the martyrs to one Nemesion, an Egyptian, who was falsely or maliciously accused as a companion of robbers. Before the centurion he justified himself from this calumny, which did not relate to him; but being charged as a Christian, he was brought in chains before the governor. That unjust magistrate, after inflicting on Nemesion a double measure of stripes and tortures, gave orders that he should be burnt with the robbers. (Dionys. apud Euseb. lib. vi. c. 41.)

It is evident that Dionysius represents the religious sufferer as innocent of the criminal accusation which had been falsely brought against him. It is no less evident, that whatever might be the opinion of the centurion, the supreme magistrate considered Nemesion as guilty, and that he affected to show, by the measure of his tortures, and by the companions of his execution, that he punished him, not only as a Christian, but as a robber. The evidence against Nemesion, and that which might be produced in his favour, are equally

* Gibbon, p. 654, note 75.

+ Davis, p. 61, 62, 63. This ridiculous charge is repeated by another sycophant, (in the Greek sense of the word,) and forms one of the valuable communications, which the learning of a Rodolph suggested to the candour of a Chelsum. See Remarks, p. 209.

lost; and the question (which fortunately is of little moment) of his guilt or innocence, rests solely on the opposite judgments of his ecclesiastical and civil superiors. I could easily perceive that both the bishop and the governor were actuated by different passions and prejudices towards the unhappy sufferer; but it was impossible for me to decide which of the two was the most likely to indulge his prejudices and passions at the expense of truth. In this doubtful situation I conceived that I had acted with the most unexceptionable caution, when I contented myself with observing that Nemesion was accused ; a circumstance of a public and authentic nature, in which both parties were agreed.

Mr. Davis will no longer ask, "What possible evasion then can Mr. Gibbon have recourse to, to convince the world that I have falsely accused him of a gross misrepresentation of Eusebius?"

2. Mr. Davis* charges me with falsifying (falsifying is a very serious word) the testimony of Eusebius; because it suited my purpose to magnify the humanity and even kindness of Maxentius towards the afflicted Christians. To support this charge, he produces some part of a chapter of Eusebius, the English in his text, the Greek in his notes, and makes the ecclesiastical historian express himself in the following terms:-"Although Maxentius at first favoured the Christians with a view of popularity, yet afterwards, being addicted to magic and every other impiety, HE exerted himself in persecuting the Christians in a more severe and destructive manner than his predecessors had done before him."

If it were in my power to place the volume and chapter of Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. lib. viii. c. 14) before the eyes of every reader, I should be satisfied and silent. I should not be under the necessity of protesting, that in the passage quoted, or rather abridged, by my adversary, the second member of the period, which alone contradicts my account of Maxentius, has not the most distant reference to that odious tyrant. After distinguishing the mild conduct which he affected towards the Christians, Eusebius proceeds to animadvert with becoming severity on the general vices of his reign; the rapes, the murders, the oppression, the promiscuous massacres, which I had faithfully related in their proper place, and in which the Christians, not in their religious, but in their civil capacity, must occasionally have shared with the rest of his unhappy subjects. The ecclesiastical historian then makes a transition to another tyrant, the cruel Maximin, who carried away from his friend and ally Maxentius the prize of superior wickedness; for HE was addicted to magic arts, and was a cruel persecutor of the Christians. The evidence of words and facts, the plain meaning of Eusebius, the concurring testimony of Cæcilius or Lactantius, and the superfluous authority of versions and commentators, establish beyond the reach of doubt or cavil, that Maximin, and not Maxentius, is stigmatized as a persecutor, and that Mr. Davis alone has deserved the reproach of falsifying the testimony of Eusebius.

Let him examine the chapter on which he founds his accusation. *Davis, p. 64, 65. + Gibbon, p. 693, note 168.

If in that moment his feelings are not of the most painful and humiliating kind, he must indeed be an object of pity!

2. A gross blunder is imputed to me by this polite antagonist,* for quoting under the name of Jerome the Chronicle which I ought to have described as the work and property of Eusebius;† and Mr. Davis kindly points out the occasion of my blunder. That it was in consequence of my looking no further than Dodwell for this remark, and of not rightly understanding his reference. Perhaps the Historian of the Roman Empire may be credited, when he affirms that he frequently consulted a Latin Chronicle of the affairs of the empire; and he may the sooner be credited, if he shows that he knows something more of this Chronicle besides the name and the title-page.

Mr. Davis, who talks so familiarly of the Chronicle of Eusebius, will be surprised to hear that the Greek original no longer exists. Some chronological fragments, which had successively passed through the hands of Africanus and Eusebius, are still extant, though in a very corrupt and mutilated state, in the compilations of Syncellus and Cedrenus. They have been collected, and disposed by the labour and ingenuity of Joseph Scaliger; but that proud critic, always ready to applaud his own success, did not flatter himself that he had restored the hundredth part of the genuine Chronicle of Eusebius. "Ex eo (Syncello) omnia Eusebiana excerpsimus quæ quidem deprehendere potuimus; quæ, quanquàm ne centesima quidem pars eorum esse videtur quæ ab Eusebio relicta sunt, aliquod tamen justum volumen explere possunt." (Jos. Scaliger, Animadversiones in Græca Eusebii in Thesauro Temporum, p. 401. Amstelod. 1658.) While the Chronicle of Eusebius was perfect and entire, the second book was translated into Latin by Jerome, with the freedom, or rather licence, which that voluminous author, as well as his friend or enemy Rufinus, always assumed. "Plurima in vertendo mutat, infulcit, præerit," says Scaliger himself, in the Prolegomena, p. 22. In the persecution of Aurelian, which has so much offended Mr. Davis, we are able to distinguish the work of Eusebius from that of Jerome, by comparing the expressions of the Ecclesiastical History with those of the Chronicle. The former affirms, that towards the end of his reign, Aurelian was moved by some councils to excite a persecution against the Christians; that his design occasioned a great and general rumour; but that when the letters were prepared, and as it were signed, divine justice dismissed him from the world. Ήδη τισι βελαις ὡς ἀν διωγμον καθ ̓ ἡμων ἐγειρειν ἀνεκινειτο. Πολυς τε ἦν ¿ παρα πασι περι τουτου λογος. Μελλοντα δε ήδη και σχεδον ειπειν τοις καθ' ἡμων γραμμασιν ὑποσημειούμενον, θεια μετεισιν δικῇ. Euseb. Ηist. Eccles. lib. vii. c. 30. Whereas the Chronicle relates, that Aurelian was killed after he had excited or moved a persecution against the Christians, "cum adversùm nos persecutionem movisset."

From this manifest difference I assume a right to assert; first, that the expression of the Chronicle of Jerome, which is always proper, became in this instance necessary; and secondly, that the language of the fathers is so ambiguous and incorrect, that we are at

*Davis, p.

a loss to determine how far Aurelian had carried his intention before he was assassinated. I have neither perverted the fact, nor have I been guilty of a gross blunder.

IX. "The persons accused of Christianity had a convenient time allowed them to settle their domestic concerns, and to prepare their answer."* This observation had been suggested, partly by a general expression of Cyprian (de Lapsis, p. 88, edit. Fell, Amstelod. 1700), and more especially by the second Apology of Justin Martyr, who gives a particular and curious example of this legal delay.

The expressions of Cyprian, "dies negantibus præstitutus, &c." which Mr. Davis most prudently suppresses, are illustrated by Mosheim in the following words: "Primùm qui delati erant aut suspecti, illis certum dierum spatium judex definiebat, quo decurrente, secum deliberare poterant, utrùm profiteri Christum an negare mallent; explorandæ fidei præfiniebantur dies, per hoc tempus liberi manebant in domibus suis; nec impediebat aliquis quod ex consequentibus apparet, ne fugâ sibi consulerent. Satis hoc erat humanum." (De Rebus Christianis ante Constantinum, p. 480.) The practice of Egypt was sometimes more expeditious and severe; but this humane indulgence was still allowed in Africa during the persecution of Decius.

But my appeal to Justin Martyr is encountered by Mr. Davis with the following declaration: "The reader will observe, that Mr. Gibbon does not make any reference to any section or division of this part of Justin's work; with what view we may shrewdly suspect, when I tell him, that after an accurate perusal of the whole second Apology, I can boldly affirm, that the following instance is the only one that bears the most distant similitude to what Mr. Gibbon relates as above on the authority of Justin." What I find in Justin is as follows: "A woman being converted to Christianity, is afraid to associate with her husband, because he is an abandoned reprobate, lest she should partake of his sins. Her husband, not being able to accuse her, vents his rage in this manner on one Ptolemæus, a teacher of Christianity, who had converted her," &c. Mr. Davis then proceeds to relate the severities inflicted on Ptolemæus, who made a frank and instant profession of his faith; and he sternly exclaims, that if I take every opportunity of passing encomiums on the humanity of Roman magistrates, it is incumbent on me to produce better evidence than this.

His demand may be easily satisfied, and I need only for that purpose transcribe and translate the words of Justin, which immediately precede the Greek quotation alleged at the bottom of my adversary's page. I am possessed of two editions of Justin Martyr, that of Cambridge, 1768, in 8vo. by Dr. Ashton, who only published the two Apologies; and that of all his works, published in fol. Paris, 1742, by the Benedictines of the Congregation of St. Maar: the following curious passage may be found, p. 164 of the former, and p. 89 of the latter edition: Κατηγορίαν πεποιηται, λεγων αὐτην

*Gibbon, p. 663.

Davis, p. 71, 72.

OF THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

735

Χριστιανην είναι, και ἡ μεν βιβλιδιον σοι τῷ αὐτοκρατορι ἀναδέδωκε, προτερον συνχωρηθῆναι αὐτῃ διοικησασθαι τα ἑαυτῇς ἀξιωσα. Έπειτα ἀπολογήσασθαι περι του κατηγορήματος, μετα την των πραγματων αὐτης διοικησιν, και συνε χώρησας τότο. "He brought an accusation against her, saying, that she was a Christian. But she presented a petition to the emperor, praying that she might be allowed to settle her domestic concerns; and promising, that after she had settled them, she would then put in her answer to the accusation. This you granted."

I disdain to add a single reflection; nor shall I qualify the conduct of my adversary with any of those harsh epithets, which might be interpreted as the expressions of resentment, though I should be constrained to use them as the only words in the English language, which could accurately represent my cool and unprejudiced senti

ments.

X. In stating the toleration of Christianity during the greatest part of the reign of Diocletian, I had observed,* that the principal officers of the palace, whose names and functions were particularly specified, enjoyed, with their wives and children, the free exercise of the Christian religion. Mr. Davis twice affirms, † in the most deliberate manner, that this pretended fact, which is asserted on the sole authority, is contradicted by the positive evidence of Lactantius. In both these affirmations Mr. Davis is inexcusably mistaken.

1. When the storms of persecution arose, the priests, who were offended by the sign of the cross, obtained an order from the emperor, that the profane, the Christians, who accompanied him to the temple, should be compelled to offer sacrifice; and this incident is mentioned by the rhetorician, to whom I shall not at present refuse the name of Lactantius. The act of idolatry, which, at the expiration of eighteen years, was required of the officers of Diocletian, is a manifest proof that their religious freedom had hitherto been inviolate, except in the single instance of waiting on their master to the temple; a service less criminal than the profane compliance for which the minister of the king of Syria solicited the permission of the prophet of Israel.

2. The reference which I made to Lactantius expressly pointed out this exception to their freedom. But the proof of the toleration was built on a different testimony, which my disingenuous adversary has concealed; an ancient and curious instruction composed by Bishop Theonas, for the use of Lucian, and the other Christian eunuchs of the palace of Diocletian. This authentic piece was published in the Spicilegium of Dom Luc d'Acheri; as I had not the opportunity of consulting the original, I was contented with quoting it on the faith of Tillemont, and the reference to it immediately precedes (ch. xvi. note 133,) the citation of Lactantius (note 134.) Mr. Davis may now answer his own question, What apology can be made for thus asserting, on the sole authority of Lactantius, facts which Lactantius so expressly denies?"

66

XI. "I have already given a curious instance of our author's assert

* Gibbon, p. 676, notes 133, 134.

† Davis, pp. 75, 76.