whole lives. There was not any crime, befide that of their religion, proved against any of thofe that were brought before Pliny. Even their accufers and profecutors appear not to have alleged any thing else against them, but that they were Chriftians. He examined deferters. He put to the torture two women, who were minifters, or deaconneffes. And yet he difcovered nothing but what was quite harmless. The only charge against them is, an abfurd fuperftition, and obftinacy

therein.

Trajan's refcript affords as strong proof of the innocence of these men. He knew not of any offence they were guilty of, excepting only, their not fupplicating to the Gods. He forbids inquiries to be made after them. And he allows pardon to thofe who would give proof, of their renouncing Chriftianity, by a public act of worship paid to the Gods, then generally received.

The honefty and innocence of these men, oblige us to pay a great regard to their belief and profeffion of the Chriftian religion. If they were fober and difcreet, before they embraced it, we may hence argue, that there were then fuch evidences of its truth, as approved themselves to ferious perfons. If they are supposed to have been in fore time vicious and irregular, here is a ftrong proof of the truth and goodness of Chriftianity, in that it had fo great an influence on mens minds at a time when they might eafily know, whether it was well-grounded or not. Either way, it is an honour to thefe principles, that they who embraced them, maintained fuch innocence in their lives, that their enemies, by the ftricteft inquiries, could difcover nothing criminal in them.

7. At the fame time, that thefe Chriftians appear refolute in their adherence to Chrift, and his doctrine, and will by no means be compelled to give religious worship to the Emperors, or the Heathen Deities, they pay due obedience to the orders of the civil magiftrate. Their evening-meeting for partaking together in a common meal, was not a facred ordinance of the Chriftian inftitution. When therefore Pliny published an edict forbidding affemblies, which was often done by the Roman Governors of provinces, becaufe of the licentious practices, which ufually attended them, thefe Chriftians forbore thofe meetings, though they had not been used to commit any disorders in

them.'

In the fecond chapter of this volume, (the tenth of the Collection) we have an account of Epictetus the Stoic Philofopher. Epictetus,' fays our Author, was not unattentive to things that paffed in the world about him, in his own time: as all must be fenfible, who read his difcourfes. Nevertheless the Christians are not mentioned at all, or very feldom. It is

bard

hard to believe that this filence was not affected. Epictetus, I apprehend, was high-minded, and the Chriftians were contemptible. He had his fhare of the common philofophic pride. He did not think it worth the while to inquire into their principles. Nor was it proper to mention them often in his difcourfes, left the curiofity of his hearers fhould be excited, and they should be induced to make more particular inquiries after them.'

The third chapter contains an account of the Emperor Adrian, his time, and character; his refcript in favour of the Chriftians, &c. In the fourth, we have the teftimony of Bruttius Præfens to Domitian's perfecution, with remarks. And in the fifth, an account of Phlegon, Thallas, and Dionyfius the Areopagite. In regard to the paffage of Phlegon supposed to relate to the miraculous darkness at the time of our Saviour's crucifixion, our Author declines infifting upon it, as a teftimony to the truth of the evangelical hiftory, as it has, in general, been little regarded, and fo feldom quoted by antient Chriftian writers, remarkable for their diligence, learning and judgment. As to Dionyfius the Areopagite, it has been often faid, that he went into Egypt, when a young man, for the fake of improvement in knowlege, and that being at Heliopolis, with his friend Apollophanes, when our Saviour fuffered, they there faw a wonderful eclipfe of the fun. Whereupon Dionyfius faid to his friend: Either God himself fuffers, or sympathizes with the fufferer. This ftory, the Doctor fays, is difregarded by learned men in general, as all the works, afcribed to Dionyfius the Areopagite, are now reckoned fpurious, and are allowed not to have been composed before the fifth or fixth century.

In the fixth chapter, we have an account of the Emperor Titus Antoninus Pius, and of his Edict, in favour of the Chriftians, to the Common Council of Afia, the genuineness of which Edict the Doctor endeavours to vindicate.

The feventh chapter is divided into three fections; in the first of which we have an account of the time and character of the Emperor Marcus Antoninus, with notes and obfervations on that famous paffage in the eleventh book of his Meditations, wherein he paffes a very unjuft cenfure upon the Chriftians, and inftead of admiring and applauding their fortitude, ascribes their readiness to die for their religion to mere obftinacy. The fecond fection contains a general account of the perfecutions in the reign of this Emperor, large extracts out of the martyrdom of Polycarp, the hiftory of the martyrs at Lyons, who fuffered in the year 177, together with remarks and obfervations upon it. In the third fection we have the account given by Eufebius, in his ecclefiaftical hiftory, of a remarkable deliverance obtained

by this Emperor in Germany, in the year 174. This deliverance is afcribed by Eufebius to the prayers of a legion of Chriftians in the Emperor's army. Our Author makes feveral very judicious obfervations on the account given by hufebius, and fums up the whole argument according to the fentiments, and almoft in the very words of the late learned Mofheim, in his book De Rebus Chriftianorum ante Conftant. M. Sec. 2. A$ this book cannot be fuppofed to be in the hands of many of our Readers, they will, no doubt, be pleafed with having the fen timents of to able a Writer on this curious fubject.

1. In the first place, it is certain, that in the war with the Quadians and Marcomans in Germany, Mark, with his army, was in a great danger. Mark was a better l'hilofopher, than Emperor. Nor could he learn the art of war from the writings of the Stoics. And his imminent danger from the enemy may be imputed to his own imprudence.

2. It is alfo certain, that he was unexpectedly delivered out of that great danger, by a fhower of rain, accompanied with thunder and lightening, and obtained a victory.

3. Farther, it is certain, that not only the Chriftians, but alfo the Emperor, and the Romans, afcribed that fhower, the great caufe of their deliverance and victory, not to the ordinary courfe of nature, but to an extraordinary interpofition of the divine power they to the true God, and their own prayers: these to Jove, br Mercury. This we learn from the Roman Authors; Dien Caffius, Capitolinus, Claudian, and Themiftius, and efpecially From the pillar at Rome, fet up by Mark, and still remaining, in which Jupiter, the giver of rain, is reprefented refreshing the almoft expiring Roman foldiers by a plentiful fhower of rain.

4. There may have been many Chriflian foldiers in Mark's army. If there were, it may be taken for granted, that in the time of the danger, they offered up prayers to God for deliverance: and that afterwards they alfo gave thanks to Ged for it, and when they feat an account of it to their Chriflian brethren, they let them know, how great advantages God had vouchfafed to their prayers. Hence it is eafy to fuppofe, that a rumour prevailed, and was alfo firmly believed, that the Romans had been miraculoufy faved by the prayers of the Chriflians.

5. It is falfe, though fupported by the authority of Apollinaris and Eufebius, that there was a whole legion of Chriftian foldiers in Mark's army. Confequently, there is no reafon to believe, that, when this imminent danger appeared, thefe folHiers drew up in a body, and falling down upon their knees prefented their prayers to God, and that inmediately, before their prayers were over, a fhower with lightening and thunder Eame down from heave

* 6. It is not true, that Mark afcribed the fafety of himself and army to that legion, and thereupon honoured it with he hame of the Thundering Legion. Scaliger and Henry Valefius, and other learned men, have fhewn, that the Thundering Legion is older than the times of Mark, and did not take its denomination from this event. But fome Chriftian, little acquainted with the military affairs of the Romans, having heard that there was fuch a legion, concluded, without reafon, that it had derived its name from thunder and lightening, obtained by the prayers of Chriftians: and then propagated his groundless imagination, which was received as true by too many, without examination, as is common in fuch cafes.

7. That Mark did not think, rhat he owed his fafety to the favour which the Chriftians were in with God, is manifeft from the pillar fet up at Rome, with his confent and approbation, in which Jupiter is acknowledged to be the deliverer of the Romans.

8. Confequently, all that is fard of Mark's public letter, writ at that time, in which he is fuppofed to have extolled the piety of the Chriftians, and to have reftrained their enemies and accufers, is intirely without foundation.

The letter which we now have, and is generally placed at the end of one of Juftin Martyr's apologies, is allowed, even by the defenders of the miracle of the Thundering Legion, to have in it manifeft tokens of fpurioufnefs, and to be the work of a man unfkilful in Roman affairs, and who probably lived in the feventh century.

But fince Tertullian in the fifth chapter of his Apology, makes mention of fuch a letter of Mark, many are of opinion, that in his time it was really in being, but has been fince loft, through the injury of time. On the other hand, fays Tertullian, we can allege a protector, as may appear, if the letter of Marcus Aurelius, a most worthy Emperor, be fought for, in which he acknow ledgeth the remarkable drought in Germany to have been removed by a Shower, obtained perhaps by the prayers of Chriftian foldiers. Nevertheless this teftimony of Tertullian is weakened, and even overthrown by divers confiderations. I forbear, fays Mr. Mofheim, to infift here upon the word perhaps: whence fome learned men have argued, that Tertullian himself doubted of this miracle, or that he had not feen the Emperor's letter. For to me it appears clear, that it does not relate to Tertullian, but to the Emperor, and his letter. The meaning of what he fays, is this: that Mark did not openly confefs and declare, that the fhower was obtained by the prayers of Chriftian foldiers, but spoke doubtfully, that perhaps this great benefit was owing to the prayers of the Chriftians. This I pafs by. But there are two other confiderations, by which this teftimony is abfolutely enervated, and overthrown

overthrown. First of all, what Tertullian fays of the defign of the Emperor's letter, if I am not greatly mistaken, manifests, that when he wrote this, he had in his eye the edict of Antonin the Pious, (who is often confounded with Mark), which he fent to the community of Afia, of which we spoke formerly, For fo he fays: Who, though he did not openly abrogate the laws against the Chriftians, yet, in another way he openly broke their force, appointing alfo a penalty to their accufers, and of the fevereft fort. Let us now attend. First of all, Tertullian fays, that Mark did not openly abrogate the laws against the Chriftians, that is, he did not openly forbid Chriftians to be punished. Then he adds, but in another way he openly broke the force of the laws, that is, he made a wife provifion, that the Chriftians fhould not be eafily punished by the judges. Laftly he fays, that he appointed a punishment for the accufers of the Chriftians. All these three things exactly fuit the edict of Antonin the Pious to the common council of Afia. There, indeed, he does not absolutely forbid the punishing of Chriftians. Nevertheless, when he appoints, that no Chriftian fhould be punished, unless he be convicted of fome crime, he very much reftrains their punishment, and contracts their fufferings in narrow limits: laftly, he requires, that the accufers of the Chriftians, who could not convict them of fome crime, fhould undergo the punishment of their own temerity. In this therefore, as I think, Tertullian was certainly mistaken, in afcribing the edict of Antonin the Pious to his fucceffor Mark Antonin. And when he had been told, that Mark and his army had been saved in a time of imminent danger by the prayers of the Chriftians, he imagined, that this benefit had induced Matk to pass that law in their favour. The other confideration, which invalidates this teftimony of Tertullian, is the perfecution of the Chriftians at Lyons and Vienne, of which we spoke formerly. It happened in the year of Chrift 177. three years after the victory obtained over the Quadians and Marcomans. For who can believe, that the Emperour, who in a public letter to the Senate, in the year 174. had extolled the Chriftians, and appointed a heavy punishment to their accufers, fhould in the year 177. deliver them up into the hands of their enemies, and order them to be capitally punished, unless they renounced their religion?”

9" There ftill remains one point to be confidered: whether the shower, by which the Romans were faved in the war with the Marcomans, ought to be placed in the number of miracles. But this question, in my opinion, may be folved without much difficulty. Learned men are now agreed, that nothing ought to be placed among miracles, which may be accounted for by the ordinary powers of nature. But in this hower, though it happened unexpectedly, there is nothing

beyond