system, that no one of those persecutors ever assigned nocturnal assemblies as the first or general cause of persecution; and equally favourable for my opinion, that they all concur in giving another cause; namely, the unhospitable temper of the Christians, in refusing to have gods in common with the rest of mankind.

PLINY, in doubt how to act with the Christians of his district, writes to his master for instructions. His embarrassment, he tells the emperor, was occasioned by his never having been present at their examinations; which made him incapable of judging what, or how he was to prosecute. "Cognitionibus de Christianis interfui nunquam: ideo nescio quid et quatenus aut puniri soleat aut quæri." He wanted to know, whether the very NAME was not criminal; either for itself, or for some mischief hid under it" Nomen ipsum etiam si flagitiis careat, an flagitia cohærentia nomini puniantur." But could a Roman magistrate, when at a loss for a pretence to persecute, overlook so fair a one as voluntary, unforced clandestine assemblies, and hunt after a mormo hid in the combination of four syllables? Not that he wanted a precedent for proceeding on these visionary grounds; but the very precedent shows that the persecutors wanted better. TERTULLIAN assures us, that the Christians had been actually persecuted for the NAME only: "Non scelus aliquod in causa, sed NOMEN; Christianus, si nullius criminis reus, nomen valde infestum, si solius nominis crimen est-si nominis odium est, quis nominum reatus: quæ accusatio vocabulorum? nisi si aut barbarum sonat aliqua vox nominis, aut infaustum, aut maledicum, aut impudicum," &c. From whence, by the way, allow me to conclude, that when a harmless NAME becomes so odious as to occasion the sect which bears it, to be persecuted, the aversion must arise from some essential principle of that sect, and not from a casual circumstance attending their religious practice. But to return to Pliny; at last he discovers something worthy of animadversion. It was their FROWARD AND INFLEXIBLE OBSTINACY:— "neque dubitabam, qualecumque esset quod faterentur, pervicaciam certe et inflexibilem obstinationem debere puniri." Now is it possible, if the Christians were first persecuted, and continued to be persecuted, for holding their assemblies in the night-time, that Pliny, after so much experience of it, should not know the crime, nor how to proceed against the offenders? What is still more unaccountable, TRAJAN, in answer to this application, is unable to deliver any general rule for the direction of his minister-"Neque enim in universum aliquid, quod quasi certam formam habeat, constitui potest." But the assembling in a clandestine manner by night, if this was the crime which gave offence, is an action that admits of few modifications in a court of justice; and so might be commodiously submitted to a general rule. On the other hand, if what the author of The Divine Legation says, be true, that they were persecuted for opposing the principle of INTERCOMMUNITY, we see plainly why no general rule could be delivered. They expressed this opposition in various ways and manners; some more, some less, offensive:

by simply refusing to worship with the pagans, when called upon; by running to their tribunals uncalled; by making a profession of their faith, unasked; or by affronting the national religion, unprovoked. Now, so just and clement a prince as Trajan might well think, these different modes of expressing their abhorrence of intercommunity deserved different degrees of animadversion.

When Nero, in a mad frolic, set Rome on fire, and then threw that atrocious act upon the Christians, it is highly probable that the nocturnal assemblies of the faithful (which, by this time, persecution had introduced amongst them) first started the happy thought, and encouraged him to pursue it. Now, if this, which is very probable, and our critic's hypothesis, which is very improbable, be both true, I cannot see how it was possible for TACITUS, when he acquits them of this calumny, and at the same time expresses the utmost virulence against them, to omit the mention of their nocturnal assemblies, had they been begun without necessity, and obstinately continued after the civil magistrate had forbidden them. Instead of this, all he had to object to the Christians, was their odium humani generis; of which, indeed, he says, they were convicted; convicti sunt: an expression, without either propriety or truth, unless we suppose he understood their refusal of intercommunity to be a conviction: other proof there was none: for when examined on the rack concerning this hatred of mankind,* they constantly denied the charge; and appealed as well to their principles as their practice; both of which declared their universal love and benevolence to all the creatures of God. But to reprobate the gods of Rome, the orbis Romanus, (of which our critic can tell us wonders) was proclaiming hatred and aversion to all the world. Hence it is that Quintilian, speaking of the topics of dispraise, says that the author of the Jewish religion (equally reprobating, with the author of the Christian, the universal principle of intercommunity) was deservedly hated and held ignominious as the founder of a superstition which was the BANE of all other religions-Et parentes malorum odimus: et est conditoribus urbium infamiæ, contraxisse aliquam PERNICIOSAM cæteris gentem, qualis est primus Judaicæ superstitionis auctor. But why pernicious and baleful to the rest, if not by accusing and condemning all other institutions of error and imposture?

MARCUS AURELIUS and JULIAN were vigilant and active; well instructed in the rights of society; and not a little jealous of the interests of the magistrate. Yet neither of these princes ever accuse the Christians of running to nocturnal assemblies unprovoked, or of persisting in the practice against imperial edicts. What a field was here for Aurelius, who despised them, to urge his charge of brutal obstinacy; and for Julian, who feared them, to cry aloud of danger to the state; their two favourite topics against these enemies of their religion and philosophy!

i. e. Concerning their principles and their practice, from whence the pagans inferred their hatred of mankind.

But sacred story may help us out where the civil fails: let us see then how this matter stands represented in Scripture: for I make our critic's cause my own, as supposing we are both in the pursuit of truth.

I have already given a brief account of the assemblies of the infantchurch, as they are occasionally mentioned in the history of the Acts of the Apostles.

Our critic's converse proposition, which we are now upon, only requires us to show in what light the persecutors of the apostles considered this matter; and whether nocturnal assemblies, when any such were held, either gave advantage to their Jewish accusers, or umbrage to the pagan magistrate, before whom the propagators of the gospel were convened.

The persecutions recorded in the history of the Acts were almost all of them raised, or at least, fomented, by the Jews. Their several accusations against those they called apostate brethren are minutely recorded and yet the crime of assembling by night is never brought into account. In the mean time, their point was to make the unwilling magistrate the instrument of their malice: for this reason, they omitted nothing which might tend to alarm the jealousy of the state; as when they accused the Christians of setting up another king, against Cæsar. Had their nocturnal assemblies therefore been held out of choice, they would not have neglected this advantage, since nothing could more alarm the civil magistrate than such assemblies. The truth is, the Jews could not be ignorant of the advantage this would afford them. But conscience and humanity are not to be overcome at once. To accuse those they hated, of what they themselves had occasioned, required a hardiness in vice which comes only by degrees; and after a long habit of abusing civil justice and the common rights of mankind.

Our critic, perhaps, may be ready to say, "that it is probable the Jews did accuse the Christian church of this misdemeanour, though the historian, in his succinct history of the Acts hath omitted to record it."

But this subterfuge will never pass with those who consider how unwilling the Roman magistrate always was to interfere in their contests, as clearly apprehending, the subject of them to be of certain matters concerning their law: so that, under this disposition, nothing could be more effectual to quicken his jealousy and resentment, than the charge of clandestine assemblies; of which, doubtless, the Romans were very jealous, as contrary to their fundamental laws, though not so extravagantly umbragious as our critic's hypothesis, obliges him to suppose. But it will be said, "Were clandestine meetings never objected to the primitive Christians?" Yes, very often. CELSUS objected such meetings to them, as things contrary to law.* But ORIGEN's reply will set matters right. He says, the church was driven upon this obnoxious measure to avoid the unjust persecution of its enemies.† Nay Celsus, in a more ingenuous humour, confesses, they had reason for what they * Οσαι κατὰ νόμους γίγνονται. — Orig. cont. Cels. † ̓Απὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ κινδύνου.

did; there being no other way to escape the severest punishments.* At least then, I have the honour of finding this reverend epicurean on my side, against our civilian and his converse proposition.

These meetings, therefore, it is confessed, subjected the church to much censure; but that was all. Tertullian, vindicating the Christians on this head, says "Hæc coitio Christianorum merito sane illicita, si illicitis par; merito damnanda, si quis de ea queritur eo titulo quod de factionibus querela est."† The passage is remarkable; and shows, not only that the Christians were never brought into condemnation for noeturnal meetings; but, why they were not; namely, because nothing bad or even suspicious could be proved against them. The law of the twelv tables says, "Si qui in urbe cœtus nocturnos agitassit, capital esto:" meaning, if celebrated without the license of the magistrate. The Christians applied for this license: it was denied them. They assembled: and such assemblies are only liable to animadversion, if any thing crimi nal or immoral be committed in them. Crimes were indeed pretended; but on inquiry, as we find by Pliny, they could not be proved. This I take to be the true explanation of Tertullian's argument: by which we understand that the Christians were not persecuted, but only calumniated, for their nocturnal assemblies.

Maximus, a pagan philosopher of Madaura, desires to know of AUSTIN why the Christians so much affected mystery. To which the answer is, "That, without doubt, this idolater did not mean, the meetings in caverns and sepulchres, in which the faithful were wont to assemble during the heat of persecution-but their mysteries of baptism and the Lord's supper."§ St Austin supposes Maximus did not intend to object to their clandestine meetings: however, if he did, he is ready to justify them on the plea of necessity, and to avoid persecution. Another sad discredit to the converse proposition.

But since our civil judge is so eager to have the primitive Christians found guilty of a crime of state, at his tribunal; I will, out of tenderness to his credit, and deference to his authority, consent to give them up; and fairly confess, they were not only accused, but even punished for high treason, the crimen læsæ majestatis. The process was thus carried Christians refused to worship the gods of Rome. Sacrificing for

on.

* Οὐ μάτην τοῦτο ποιοῦσιν, ἅτε διωθούμενοι τὴν ἐπηρτημένην αὐτοῖς δίκην τοῦ θανάτου. Apol. cap. xxxviii.

This appears to be the true sense of the law, from a passage in Cicero's dialogue De Legibus. Atticus thought him too severe upon nocturnal assemblies: he vindicates himself by observing, that, even in the midst of Greece, Diagondas, the Theban, totally abolished them. Ne nos duriores forte videamur, in media Græcia, Diagondas Thebanus lege perpetua sustulit. From hence I infer these two things; that, were not the law of the twelve tables to be understood in the sense here given to it, Cicero needed not have gone so far as Thebes for his justification: and secondly, that his laying so much stress upon the abolition's being made in the midst of Greece, shows how strongly, in his opinion, that country was attached to nocturnal assemblies.

Ep. xliv.

the safety of the empire, and for the life of the emperor, made part of that worship. If the Christians could not worship, they could not sacrifice: but this sacrifice was esteemed a necessary part of civil obedience. The omission of it, therefore, was a crime of state, and amounted to high treason. Tertullian sums up the charge, and pleads guilty to it. "Deos inquitis," says he, repeating the pagan accusation, "non colitis, et pro imperatoribus sacrificia non impenditis:-sacrilegii et majestatis rei convenimur. SUMMA HEC CAUSA, IMO TOTA EST." Here again, we see, antiquity gives the exclusion to the converse proposition: for if this was the only cause of persecution, certainly nocturnal assemblies was not onė. I could wish therefore, by this crime of state, to save the learned doctor's credit and authority. But I am afraid, on examination, it will prove no more than their refusal to communicate in pagan worship. Tertullian himself, in the passage quoted above, makes it amount to no more. However, it was esteemed to be the crimen læsæ majestatis: and this we are not to wonder at; for one of the greatest ornaments of paganism, long before the moving this question, had declared, that even the exclusive worship of one God came pretty near the matter. MAJESTATEM IMPERII NON DECUISSE UT UNUS TANTUM DEUS COLATUR, says Cicero, in his oration for Flaccus.

Νο

You see then, at length, to what our critic's discovery amounts. marvel he triumphs in it. "And now," says he, "can any one doubt that the considerations I have mentioned, were those which GAVE AN EDGE to the Roman persecutions? The professors of Christianity had NO REASON to be apprehensive of any severities upon the score of religion, any more than the professors of ANY OTHER RELIGION besides. Antiquity, in its public capacity, was generally very indulgent to all who dissented from the established worship: persecution for DIFFERENCE OF belief alone owes its nativity to more modern ages, and Spain was its country; where Priscillian, by some, is held to be the first sufferer for mere opinion."-Pp. 579, 580.

And now can any one doubt that the considerations I have mentioned were those which GAVE AN EDGE to the Roman persecutions?— For a trusty guide, allow me to recommend him to the reader; whom he is ready to mislead, the very first step he makes. The question is, and so he himself has stated it, what OCCASIONED the Roman persecutions? Here, he changes it to-What GAVE AN EDGE to them?—Nocturnal assemblies might give an edge to the persecutions, and yet all be true that his adversary affirms, and the persecutions be occasioned by a very different thing. But our critic is so highly figurative, and often so sublime, as to transcend the common liberties of speech. Thus he speaks of antiquity in its public capacity, meaning, I suppose, the civil states of Greece and Rome; though in the mode of ordinary language it would be no inelegant periphrasis for the NEW INCORPORATED SOCIETY OF ANTIQUARIES: again he talks of the nativity of persecution, and of its being a native of Spain; and yet he seems not to mean, as you would fancy,