to the edification of those whom he had guided during life. Such, at least, is his own explanation of his conduct in one of his letters: Cum perlatum ad nos fuisset, fratres carissimi, frumentarios esse missos qui me Uticam perducerent, consilioque carissimorum persuasum est, ut de hortis interim secederemus, justâ inteveniente causâ, consensi; eo quod congruat episcopum in eâ civitate, in quâ Ecclesiæ dominicæ præest, illic Dominum confiteri et plebem universam præpositi præsentis confessione clarificari, Ep. 83.-G.

P. 307. There is nothing in the life of St. Cyprian, by Pontius, nor in the ancient manuscripts, which can make us suppose that the presbyters and deacons, in their clerical character, and known to be such, had the permission to attend their holy bishop. Setting aside all religious considerations, it is impossible not to be surprised at the kind of complaisance with which the historian here insists, in favour of the persecutors, on some mitigating circumstances allowed at the death of a man whose only crime was maintaining his own opinions with frankness and courage.-G.

P. 307.- M. de Tillemont, as an honest writer, explains the difficulties which he felt about the text of Pontius, and concludes by distinctly stating, that without doubt there is some mistake, and that Pontius must have meant only Africa Minor or Carthage; for St. Cyprian, in his 58th (69th) letter addressed to Pupianus, speaks expressly of many bishops his colleagues, qui proscripti sunt, vel apprehensi in carcere et catenis fuerunt; aut qui in exilium relegati, illustri itinere ad Dominum profecti sunt; aut qui quibusdam locis animadversi, cœlestes coronas de Domini clarificatione sumpserunt.-G.

P. 308.-M. Guizot denies that the let ters of Cyprian, to which he refers, bear out the statement in the text. I cannot scruple to admit the accuracy of Gibbon's quotation. To take only the fifth letter, we find this passage: Doleo enim quando audio quosdam improbè et insolenter discurrere, et ad ineptias vel ad discordias vacare, Christi membra et jam Christum confessa per concubitus illicitos inquinari, nec a diaconis aut presbyteris regi posse, sed id agere ut per paucorum pravos et malos mores, multorum et bonorum confessorum gloria honesta maculetur. Gibbon's misrepresentation lies in the ambiguous expression "too often." Were the epistles arranged in a different manner in the edition consulted by M. Guizot?-M.

P. 309. The 15th chapter of the 10th book of the Eccles. History of Eusebius treats principally of the martyrdom of St.

Polycarp, and mentions some other martyrs. A single example of weakness is related; it is that of a Phrygian named Quintus, who, appalled at the sight of the wild beasts and the tortures, renounced his faith. This example proves little against the mass of Christians, and this chapter of Eusebius furnished much stronger evidence of their courage than of their timidity.-G.

This Quintus had, however, rashly and of his own accord appeared before the tribunal; and the church of Smyrna condemn "his indiscreet ardour," coupled as it was with weakness in the hour of trial.-M.

P. 309.-† The examples drawn by the historian from Justin Martyr and Cyprian relate altogether to particular cases, and prove nothing as to the general practice adopted towards the accused; it is evident, on the contrary, from the same apology of St. Justin, that they hardly ever obtained delay. "A man named Lucius, himself a Christian, present at an unjust sentence passed against a Christian by the judge Urbicus, asked him why he thus punished a man who was neither adulterer nor robber, nor guilty of any crime but of avowing himself a Christian." Urbicus answered only in these words: "Thou also hast the appearance of being a Christian." "Yes, without doubt," replied Lucius. The judge ordered that he should be put to death on the instant. A third, who came up, was condemned to be beaten with rods. Here, then, are three examples where no delay was granted. [Surely these acts of a single passionate and irritated judge prove the general practice as little as those quoted by Gibbon.-M.] There exist a multitude of others, such as those of Ptolemy, Marcellus, &c. Justin expressly charges the judges with ordering the accused to be executed without hearing the cause. The words of St. Cyprian are as particular, and simply say, that he had appointed a day by which the Christians must have renounced their faith; those who had not done it by that time were condemned.-G. This confirms the statement in the text.-M.

P. 310. The penance was not so slight, for it was exactly the same with that of apostates who had sacrificed to idols: it lasted several years. See Fleury, Hist. Ecc., v. ii., p. 171.-G.

P. 310. Pliny says, that the greater part of the Christians persisted in avowing themselves to be so; the reason for his consulting Trajan was the periclitantium numerus. Eusebius (1. vi., c. 41) does not permit us to doubt that the number of those who renounced their faith was infinitely below the number of those who boldly confessed it. The prefect, he says, and his as

sessors present at the council, were alarmed at seeing the crowd of Christians; the judges themselves trembled. Lastly, St. Cyprian informs us, that the greater part of those who had appeared weak brethren in the persecution of Decius, signalized their courage in that of Gallus. Steterunt fortes, et ipso dolore pœnitentiæ facti ad prælium fortiores. Epist. lx., p. 142.-G.

P. 311. Gibbon, with this phrase and that below, which admits the injustice of Marcus, has dexterously glossed over one of the most remarkable facts in the early Christian history, that the reign of the wisest and most humane of the heathen emperors was the most fatal to the Christians. Most writers have ascribed the persecutions under Marcus to the latent bigotry of his character; Mosheim to the influence of the philosophic party but the fact is admitted by all. A late writer (Mr. Waddington, Hist. of the Church, p. 47) has not scrupled to assert, that "this prince polluted every year of a long reign with innocent blood;" but the causes, as well as the date of the persecutions authorized or permitted by Marcus, are equally uncertain.

Of the Asiatic edict recorded by Melito, the date is unknown, nor is it quite clear that it was an imperial edict. If it was the act under which Polycarp suffered, his martyrdom is placed by Ruinart in the sixth, by Mosheim in the ninth year of the reign of Marcus. The martyrs of Vienne and Lyons are assigned by Dodwell to the seventh, by most writers to the seventeenth. In fact, the commencement of the persecutions of the Christians appears to synchronise exactly with the period of the breaking out of the Marcomannic war, which seems to have alarmed the whole empire, and the emperor himself, into a paroxysm of returning piety to their gods, of which the Christians were the victims. See Jul. Capit., Script. Hist. Aug., p. 181, edit. 1661. It is remarkable that Tertullian (Apologet., c. v.) distinctly asserts that Verus (M. Aurelius) issued no edicts against the Christians, and almost positively exempts him from the charge of persecution.-M.

P. 312. The Jews and Christians contest the honour of having furnished a nurse to the fratricide son of Severus, Caracalla. Hist of Jews, iii., 158.-M.

P. 313. It is with good reason that this massacre has been called a persecution, for it lasted during the whole reign of Maximin, as may be seen in Eusebius (1. vi., c. 28). Rufinus expressly confirms it; Tribus annis a Maximino persecutione commoto, in quibus finem et persecutionis fecit et vitæ. Hist., 1. vi., c. 19.—G.

P. 313.- If this be the case, Dion Cas

sius must have known the Christians; they must have been the subject of his particular attention, since the author supposes that he wished his master to profit by these " counsels of persecution." How are we to reconcile this necessary consequence with what Gibbon has said of the ignorance of Dion Cassius, even of the name of the Christians? (c. xvi., n. 24). [Gibbon speaks of Dion's silence, not of his ignorance.-M.] The supposition in this note is supported by no proof; it is probable that Dion Cassius has often designated the Christians by the name of Jews. See Dion Cassius, 1. lxvii., c. 14; lxviii., 1.-G.

On this point I should adopt the view of Gibbon rather than that of M. Guizot.-M. P. 314. Dr. Lardner has detailed, with his usual impartiality, all that has come down to us relating to the persecution of Aurelian, and concludes by saying, "Upon more carefully examining the words of Eusebius, and observing the accounts of other authors, learned men have generally, and, as I think, very judiciously, determined that Aurelian not only intended, but did actually persecute; but his persecution was short, he having died soon after the publication of his edicts." Heathen Test., c. xxxvi. Basnage positively pronounces the same opinion: Non intentatum modo, sed executum quoque brevissimo tempore mandatum, nobis infixum est in animis. Basn., Ann., 275, No. 2, and compare Pagi, Ann., 272, Nos. 4, 12, 273.-G.

P. 315. It appears, nevertheless, that the vices and immoralities of Paul of Samosata had much weight in the sentence pronounced against him by the bishops. The object of the letter, addressed by the synod to the bishops of Rome and Alexandria, was to inform them of the change in the faith of Paul, the altercations and discussions to which it had given rise, as well as of his morals and the whole of his conduct. Euseb., Hist. Eccl., 1. vii., c. xxx.-G.

P. 315.-"Her favourite (Zenobia's), Paul of Samosata, seems to have entertained some views of attempting a union between Judaism and Christianity; both parties rejected the unnatural alliance." Hist. of Jews, iii., 175, and Jost, Geschichte der Israeliter, iv., 167. The protection of the severe Zenobia is the only circumstance which may raise a doubt of the notorious immorality of Paul:-M.

P. 315. On the era of martyrs see the very curious dissertations of Mons. Letronne on some recently discovered inscriptions in Egypt and Nubia, p. 102, &c.—M.

P. 316. On the extraordinary progress of the Mithriac rites in the West, see De Guigniaut's translation of Creuzer, vol.

i., p. 365, and Note 9, tom. i., part 2, p. 738, &c.

P. 317.- M. Guizot criticises Gibbon's account of this incident. He supposes that Maximilian was not " produced by his father as a recruit," but was obliged to appear by the law, which compelled the sons of soldiers to serve at twenty-one years old. Was not this a law of Constantine? Neither does this circumstance appear in the acts. His father had clearly expected him to serve, as he had bought him a new dress for the occasion; yet he refused to force the conscience of his son, and when Maximilian was condemned to death, the father returned home in joy, blessing God for having bestowed upon him such a son.-M.

P. 318- M. Guizot here justly observes, that it was the necessity of sacrificing to the gods which induced Marcellus to act in this manner.-M.

P. 318. Lactantius, who was subsequently chosen by Constantine to educate Crispus, might easily have learned these details from Constantine himself, already of sufficient age to interest himself in the affairs of the government, and in a position to obtain the best information.-G.

This assumes the doubtful point of the authorship of the Treatise.-M.

P. 318. This permission was not extorted from Diocletian; he took the step of his own accord. Lactantius says, in truth, Nec tamen deflectere potuit (Diocletianus) præcipitis hominis insaniam; placuit ergo amicorum sententiam experiri. (De Mort. Pers., c. 11.) But this measure was in accordance with the artificial character of Diocletian, who wished to have the appearance of doing good by his own impulse, and evil by the impulse of others. Nam erat hujus malitiæ, cum bonum quid facere decrevisset, sine consilio faciebat, ut ipse laudaretur. Cum autem malum, quoniam id reprehendendum sciebat, in consilium multos advocabat, ut aliorum culpæ adscriberetur quicquid apse deliquerat. Lact., ib. Eutropius says likewise, Miratus callidè fuit, sagax præterea et admodum subtilis ingenio, et qui severitatem suam alienâ invidia vellet explere. Eutrop., ix., c. 26. -G.

The manner in which the coarse and unfriendly pencil of the author of the Treatise de Mort. Pers. has drawn the character of Diocletian, seems inconsistent with this profound subtlety. Many readers will perhaps agree with Gibbon.-M.

P. 318.- This disregard consisted in the Christians fasting and praying instead of participating in the banquets and sacrifices which she celebrated with the pagans. Dapibus sacrificabat pone quotidiè, ac vica

riis suis epulis exhibebat. Christiani abstinebant, et illâ cum gentibus epulante, jejuniis hi et orationibus insistebant: hinc concepit odium adversus eos. Lact, de Hist. Pers., c. 11.-G.

P. 319. This wants proof. The edict of Diocletian was executed in all its rigour during the rest of his reign. Euseb., Hist. Eccl., 1. viii., c. 13.-G.

P. 320. As the history of these times affords us no example of any attempts made by the Christians against their persecutors, we have no reason, not the slightest probability, to attribute to them the fire in the palace; and the authority of Constantine and Lactantius remains to explain it. M. de Tillemont has shown how they can be reconciled. Hist. des Empereurs Vie de Diocletian, xix.-G. Had it been done by a Christian, it would probably have been a fanatic, who would have avowed and gloried in it. Tillemont's supposition that the fire was first caused by lightning, and fed and increased by the malice of Galerius, seems singularly improbable.-M.

P. 321.- Universum populum. Lact, Inst. Div., v., 11.-G.

P. 322. He had already passed them in his first edict. It does not appear that resentment or fear had any share in the new persecutions; perhaps they originated in superstition, and a specious apparent respect for its ministers. The oracle of Apollo, consulted by Diocletian, gave no answer; and said that just men hindered it from speaking. Constantine, who assisted at the ceremony, affirms with an oath, that, when questioned about these men, the high-priest named the Christians. "The emperor eagerly seized on this answer, and drew against the innocent a sword, destined only to punish the guilty: he instantly issued edicts, written, if I may use the expression, with a poniard; and ordered the judges to employ all their skill to invent new modes of punishment. Euseb., Vit. Constant., I. ii., c. 54."-G.

P. 323.-M. Guizot suggests the powerful eunuchs of the palace, Dorotheus, Gorgonius, and Andrew, admitted by Gibbon himself to have been put to death, p.

320.-M.

P. 323. M. Guizot directly contradicts this statement of Gibbon, and appeals to Eusebius. "Maxentius, who assumed the power in Italy, pretended to be a Christian (Kabuεкpivaro), to gain the favour of the Roman people; he ordered his ministers to cease to persecute the Christians, affecting a hypocritical piety, in order to appear more mild than his predecessors; but his actions soon proved that he was very different from what they had at first hoped."

The actions of Maxentius were those of a lascivious and cruel tyrant, but not those of a persecutor; the Christians, like the rest of his subjects, suffered from his vices, but they were not oppressed as a sect. Christian females were exposed to his lusts, as well as to the brutal violence of his colleague Maximian, but they were not selected as Christians.-M.

P. 324. The words of Optatus are, Profectus (Roman) causam dixit; jussus est reverti Carthaginem; perhaps, in pleading his cause, he exculpated himself, since he received an order to return to Carthage. —G.

P. 324.- We are ignorant whether Aglae and Boniface were Christians at the time of their unlawful connexion. See Tillemont, Mem. Eccles., Note on the Persecution of Domitian, tom. v., note 82. M. de Tillemont proves also that the history is doubtful.-G.

Sir D. Dalrymple (Lord Hailes) calls the story of Aglae and Boniface as of equal authority with our popular histories of Whittington and Hickathrift. Christian Antiquities, ii., 64.—M.

P. 324.- A little after this, Christianity was propagated to the north of the Roman provinces, among the tribes of Germany: a multitude of Christians, forced by the emperors to take refuge among the Barbarians, were received with kindness. Euseb., de Vit. Constant., ii., 53. Semler, Select., cap. H. E., p. 115. The Goths owed their first knowledge of Christianity to a young girl, a prisoner of war; she continued in the midst of them her exercises of piety; she fasted, prayed, and praised God day and night. When she was asked what good could come of so much painful trouble, she answered, "It is thus that Christ, the Son of God, is to be honoured." Sozomen, ii., c. 6.-G.

P. 325. But Gibbon has answered this by his just observation, that it is not in the language of edicts and manifestos that we should search ** for the secret motives of princes.-M.

P. 326. It is easy to reconcile them; it is sufficient to quote the entire text of Lactantius: Nam cum clementiam specie tenus profiteretur, occidi servos Dei vetuit, debilitari jussit. Itaque confessoribus effodiebantur oculi, amputabantur manus, nares vel auriculæ desecabantur. Hæc ille moliens Constantini litteris deterretur. Dis. simulavit ergo, et tamen, si quis inciderit, mari occultè mergebatur. This detail of torments inflicted on the Christians easily reconciles Lactantius and Eusebius. Those who died in consequence of their tortures, those who were plunged into the sea, might

well pass for martyrs. The mutilation of the words of Lactantius has alone given rise to the apparent contradiction.-G.

Eusebius, ch. vi., relates the public martyrdom of the aged bishop of Emesa, with two others, who were thrown to the wild beasts, the beheading of Peter bishop of Alexandria, with several others, and the death of Lucian, presbyter of Antioch, who was carried to Numidia, and put to death in prison. The contradiction is direct and undeniable; for although Eusebius may have misplaced the former martyrdoms, it may be doubted whether the authority of Maximin extended to Nicomedia till after the death of Galerius. The last edict of toleration issued by Maximin, and published by Eusebius himself, Eccl. Hist., ix., 9, confirms the statement of Lactantius.-M.

P. 326.- Historical criticism does not consist in rejecting indiscriminately all the facts which do not agree with a particular system, as Gibbon does in this chapter, in which, except at the last extremity, he will not consent to believe a martyrdom. Authorities are to be weighed, not excluded from examination. Now the pagan historians justify in many places the details which have been transmitted to us by the historians of the church, concerning the tortures endured by the Christians. Celsus reproaches the Christians with holding their assemblies in secret, on account of the fear inspired by their sufferings; "for when you are arrested," he says, "you are dragged to punishment; and, before you are put to death, you have to suffer all kinds of tortures." Origen, cont. Cels., 1. i., ii., vi., viii., passim. Libanius, the panegyrist of Julian, says, while speaking of the Christians, "Those who followed a corrupt religion were in continual apprehensions; they feared lest Julian should invent tortures still more refined than those to which they had been exposed before, as mutilation, burning alive, &c.: for the emperors had inflicted upon them all these barbarities." Lib. Parent. in Julian, ap. Fab. Bib. Græc., No. 9, No. 58, p. 283.-G.

P. 326. This sentence of Gibbon has given rise to several learned dissertations: Möller, De fide Eusebii, Cæsar, &c., Havniæ, 1813. Danzius, de Eusebio Cæs. Hist. Eccl. Scriptore, ejus que fide historicâ rectè æstimanda, &c., Jenæ, 1815. Kestner, Commentatio de Eusebii Hist. Eccles. conditoris auctoritate et fide, &c. See also Reuterdahl, de fontibus, Historia Eccles. Eusebianæ, Lond., Goth., 1826. Gibbon's inference may appear stronger than the text will warrant, yet it is difficult, after reading the passages, to dismiss all suspicion of partiality from the mind.—M.