vertendo mutat, infulcit, præterit," 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 Jerom, 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. Ηδη τισι βόλαις ως αν διωγμον καθ' ήμων εγείρειεν ανεκινείτο, πολυς τε ην ὁ παρα πασι περί τ8τε λογος, μελλοντα δε ηδη και σχεδόν ειπειν τοις καθ' ήμων γραμμασιν υποσημειωμενον, θεια μετ τεισιν δίκη. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. L. vii. c. 30. Whereas the Chronicle relates, that Aurelian was killed after he had excited or moved a persecution against the Christians, "cum adversum nos persecutionem movisset."

From this manifest difference I assume a right to assert; first, that the expression of the Chronicle of Jerom, 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 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 JUSTIN

a con

MARTYR.

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: "Primum qui delati erant aut suspecti, illis certum dierum spatium judex definiebat, quo decurrente, secum deliberare poterant, utrum profiteri Christum an negare mallent; exploranda 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 De

cius.

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

Gibbon, P. 663.

↑ Davis, p. 71, 72.

an

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 autho rity 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, and who had converted her, &c." Mr. Davis then proceeds to relate the severities inflicted on Ptolemæus, who made a fiank 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 folio, 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 : Κατηγοριαν πεποιηται, λεγων αυτην χριστιανην ειναι, και ή μεν βιβλιδίον σοι τω αυτοκρατορι ανα δέδωκε, πρότερον συνχωρήθηκαν αυτή διοικήσασθαι τα εαυτης αξίωσα.

VOL. IV.

LACTAN

2106.

αξίωσα, έπειτα απολογήσασθαι περι τα κατηγορματος, μετα την των πραγμάτων αυτής διοικησιν. και συνεχώρησας τέτοι "He brought an accusation against her, saying, that she was a christian. But she presented a petition to the emperor, praying that she might first 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 sentiments.

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

Gibbon, p. 676. N. 133, 134.

↑ Davis, p. 75, 76.

Cross,

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?"