BOOK I.

OF PERSECUTION AMONGST THE HEATHENS UPON ACCOUNT OF RELIGION.

SECT. I. _Abraham persecuted._

There is a passage in the book of Judith[1] which intimates to us, that the ancestors of the Jews themselves were persecuted upon account of their religion. Achior, captain of the sons of Ammon, gives Holofernes this account of the origin of that nation. “This people are descended of the Chaldeans; and they sojourned heretofore in Mesopotamia, because they would not follow the gods of their fathers, which were in the land of Chaldea; for they left the way of their ancestors, and worshipped the God of heaven, the God whom they knew. So they cast them out from the face of their gods, and they fled into Mesopotamia, and sojourned there many days.” St. Austin[2] and Marsham[3] both take notice of this tradition; which is farther confirmed by all the oriental historians, who, as the learned Dr. Hyde[4] tells us, unanimously affirm, that Abraham suffered many persecutions upon the account of his opposition to the idolatry of his country; and that he was particularly imprisoned for it by Nimrod in Ur. Some of the eastern writers also tell us, that he was thrown into the fire, but that he was miraculously preserved from being consumed in it by God. This tradition also the Jews believed, and is particularly mentioned by Jonathan[5] in his Targum upon Gen. xi. 28. “Nimrod threw Abraham into a furnace of fire, because he would not worship his idol; but the fire had no power to burn him.” So early doth persecution seem to have begun against the worshippers of the true God.

Footnote 1:

Cap. 5. v. 6, &c.

Footnote 2:

De civit. Dei, l. 16. c. 13.

Footnote 3:

Marsh. Cron. § 5..fn-

Footnote 4:

De Relig. Pers. c. 2.

Footnote 5:

Hotting. Smeg. Orient. p. 290, &c.

SECT. II. _Socrates persecuted amongst the Greeks, and others._

[A]Socrates,[6] who, in the judgment of an oracle, was the wisest man living, was persecuted by the Athenians on the account of his religion, and, when past seventy years of age, brought to a public trial, and condemned. His accusation was principally this: “That he did unrighteously and curiously search into the great mysteries of heaven and earth; that he corrupted the youth, and did not esteem the gods worshipped by the city to be really gods, and that he introduced new deities.” This last part of his accusation was undoubtedly owing to his inculcating upon them more rational and excellent conceptions of the Deity, than were allowed by the established creeds of his country, and to his arguing against the corruptions and superstitions which he saw universally practised by the Greeks. This was called corrupting the youth who were his scholars, and what, together with his superior wisdom, raised him many enemies amongst all sorts of people, who loaded him with reproaches, and spread reports concerning him greatly to his disadvantage, endeavouring thereby to prejudice the minds of his very judges against him. When he was brought to his trial, several of his accusers were never so much as named or discovered to him; so that, as he himself complained, he was, as it were, fighting with a shadow, when he was defending himself against his adversaries, because he knew not whom he opposed, and had no one to answer him. However, he maintained his own innocence with the noblest resolution and courage; shewed he was far from corrupting the youth, and openly declared that he believed the Being of a God. And, as the proof of this his belief, he bravely said to his judges; “that though he was very sensible of his danger from the hatred and malice of the people, yet that, as he apprehended, God himself had appointed him to teach his philosophy, so he should grievously offend him should he forsake his station through fear of death, or any other evil; and that for such a disobedience to the Deity, they might more justly accuse him, as not believing there were any gods:” adding, as though he had somewhat of the same blessed spirit that afterwards rested on the apostles of Christ, “that if they would dismiss him upon the condition of not teaching his philosophy any more, ‘I will obey God rather than you, and teach my philosophy as long as I live’.” However, notwithstanding the goodness of his cause and defence, he was condemned for impiety and atheism, and ended his life with a draught of poison, dying a real martyr for God, and the purity of his worship. Thus we see that in the ages of natural reason and light, not to be orthodox, or to differ from the established religion, was the same thing as to be impious and atheistical; and that one of the wisest and best men that ever lived in the heathen world was put to death merely on account of his religion. The Athenians, indeed, afterwards repented of what they had done, and condemned one of his accusers, Melitus, to death, and the others to banishment.

Footnote A:

See note [A] at the end of the volume.

Footnote 6:

Plat. in Apolog. pro Socrate. Diog. Laert. in vit. Soc.

I must add, in justice to the laity, that the judges and accusers of Socrates were not priests. Melitus was a poet, Anytus an artificer, and Lycon an orator; so that the prosecution was truly laic, and the priests do not appear to have had any share in his accusation, condemnation, and death. Nor, indeed, was there any need of the assistance of priestcraft in this affair, the prosecution of this excellent man being perfectly agreeable to the constitution and maxims of the Athenian government; which had, to use the words of a late reverend author,[7] “incorporated or made religion a part of the laws of the civil community.” One of the Attic laws was to this effect: “Let it be a perpetual law, and binding at all times, to worship our national gods and heroes publicly, according to the laws of our ancestors.” So that no new gods, nor new doctrines about old gods, nor any new rites of worship, could be introduced by any person whatsoever, without incurring the penalty of this law, which was death. Thus Josephus tells us,[8] that it was prohibited by law to teach new gods, and that the punishment ordained against those who should introduce any such, was death. Agreeably to this, the orator Isocrates,[9] pleading in the grand council of Athens, puts them in mind of the custom and practice of their ancestors: “This was their principal care to abolish nothing they had received from their fathers in matters of religion, nor to make any addition to what they had established.” And therefore, in his advice to Nicocles, he exhorts him to be “of the same religion with his ancestors.” So that the civil establishment of religion in Athens was entirely exclusive, and no toleration whatsoever allowed to those who differed from it. On this account, the philosophers[10] in general were, by a public decree, banished from Athens, as teaching heterodox opinions, and “corrupting the youth” in matters of religion; and, by a law, very much resembling the famous modern Schism Bill, prohibited from being masters and teachers of schools, without leave of the senate and people, even under pain of death. This law, indeed, like the other, was but very short-lived, and Sophocles, the author of it, punished in a fine of five talents. Lysimachus[11] also banished them from his kingdom. It is evident from these things, that, according to the Athenian constitution, Socrates was legally condemned for not believing in the gods of his country, and presuming to have better notions of the Deity than his superiors. In like manner, a certain woman,[12] a priestess, was put to death, upon an accusation of her introducing new deities.

Footnote 7:

Dr. Rogers’s Vindication of the Civil Establishment, &c.

Footnote 8:

Cont. Apion. l. 2. c. 37. Edit. Havere.

Footnote 9:

Isoc. Areop.

Footnote 10:

Athen. p. 610. Edit. Casaub. Diog. Laert. l. 5. Segm. 38.

Footnote 11:

Athen. p. 610.

Footnote 12:

Jos. ibid.

Diogenes Laertius[13] tells us, that Anaxagoras, the philosopher, was accused of impiety, because he affirmed, that “the sun was a globe of red-hot iron;” which was certainly great heresy, because his country worshipped him as a god. Stilpo[14] was also banished his country, as the same writer tells us, because he denied “Minerva to be a god, allowing her only to be a goddess.” A very deep and curious controversy this, and worthy the cognizance of the civil magistrate. Diagoras[15] was also condemned to death, and a talent decreed to him that should kill him upon his escape, being accused of “deriding the mysteries of the gods.” Protagoras also would have suffered death, had he not fled his country, because he had written something about the gods, that differed from the orthodox opinions of the Athenians. Upon the same account, Theodorus, called Atheus, and Theotimus,[16] who wrote against Epicurus, being accused by Zeno, an Epicurean, were both put to death.

Footnote 13:

In vit. Anax.

Footnote 14:

l. 5. c. 38.

Footnote 15:

Joseph. ibid. Athen. p. 611.

Footnote 16:

Athen. ibid.

The Lacedemonians[17] constantly expelled foreigners, and would not suffer their own citizens to dwell in foreign parts, because they imagined that both the one and the other tended to corrupt and weaken their own laws; nor would they suffer the teaching of rhetoric or philosophy, because of the quarrels and disputes that attended it. The Scythians, who delighted in human blood, and were, as Josephus says,[18] little different from beasts, yet were zealously tenacious of their own rites, and put Anacharsis, a very wise person, to death, because he seemed to be very fond of the Grecian rites and ceremonies. [D]Herodotus[19] says, that he was shot through the heart with an arrow, by Saulius their king, for sacrificing to the mother of the gods after the manner of the Grecians; and that Scyles, another of their kings, was deposed by them, for sacrificing to Bacchus, and using the Grecian ceremonies of religion, and his head afterwards cut off by Octamasades, who was chosen king in his room. “So rigid were they,” says the historian,[20] “in maintaining their own customs, and so severe in punishing the introducers of foreign rites.” Many also amongst the Persians[21] were put to death, on the same account. And, indeed, it was almost the practice of all nations to punish those who disbelieved or derided their national gods; as appears from Timocles, who, speaking of the gods of the Egyptians,[22] says, “How shall the ibis, or the dog, preserve me?” And then adds, “Where is the place that doth not immediately punish those who behave impiously towards the gods, such as are confessed to be gods?”

Footnote 17:

Joseph. ibid. § 36. Athen. ibid.

Footnote 18:

Joseph. § 37.

Footnote D:

See note [D] at the end of the volume.

Footnote 19:

Herodot. Melpom. p. 246. Edit. Gronov.

Footnote 20:

Id. p. 248.

Footnote 21:

Joseph. ibid.

Footnote 22:

Athen. p. 300.

SECT. III. _Egyptian persecutions._

Juvenal[23] gives us a very tragical account of some disputes and quarrels about religion amongst the Egyptians, who entertained an eternal hatred and enmity against each other, and eat and devoured one another, because they did not all worship the same god.

Footnote 23:

Satyr. 15. See also Joseph. cont. Ap. l. 2. § 6.

“[24]Ombos and Tentyr, neighbouring towns, of late, Broke into outrage of deep fester’d hate. Religious spite and pious spleen bred first This quarrel, which so long the bigots nurst. Each calls the other’s god a senseless stock, His own, divine, tho’ from the self-same block. At first both parties in reproaches jar, And make their tongues the trumpets of the war. Words serve but to inflame the warlike lists, Who wanting weapons clutch their horny fists. Yet thus make shift t’ exchange such furious blows, Scarce one escapes with more than half a nose. Some stand their ground with half their visage gone, But with the remnant of a face fight on. Such transform’d spectacles of horror grow, That not a mother her own son would know, One eye remaining for the other spies, Which now on earth a trampled gelly lies.”

Footnote 24:

Englished by Mr. Dryden, &c.

All this religious zeal hitherto is but mere sport and childish play, and therefore they piously proceed to farther violences; to hurling of stones, and throwing of arrows, till one party routs the other, and the conquerors feast themselves on the mangled bodies of their divided captives.

“Yet hitherto both parties think the fray But mockery of war, mere children’s play. This whets their rage, to search for stones—— An Ombite wretch (by headlong strait betray’d, And falling down i’th’ rout) is prisoner made. Whose flesh torn off by lumps the ravenous foe In morsels cut, to make it farther go. His bones clean pick’d, his very bones they gnaw; No stomach’s balk’d, because the corps is raw. T’ had been lost time to dress him: keen desire Supplies the want of kettle, spit, and fire.”

Plutarch[25] also relates, that in his time some of the Egyptians who worshipped a dog, eat one of the fishes, which others of the Egyptians adored as their deity; and that upon this, the fish eaters laid hold on the other’s dogs, and sacrificed and eat them; and that this gave occasion to a bloody battle, in which a great number were destroyed on both sides.

Footnote 25:

De Isid. et Osir. p. 380. Edit. Franc.

SECT. IV. _Persecutions by Antiochus Epiphanes._

Antiochus Epiphanes, though a very wicked prince, yet was a great zealot for his religion, and endeavoured to propagate it by all the methods of the most bloody persecution. Josephus[26] tells us, that after he had taken Jerusalem, and plundered the temple, he caused an altar to be built in it, upon which he sacrificed swine, which were an abomination to the Jews, and forbidden by their laws. Not content with this, he compelled them to forsake the worship of the true God, and to worship such as he accounted deities; building altars and temples to them in all the towns and streets, and offering swine upon them every day. He commanded them to forbear circumcising their children, grievously threatening such as should disobey his orders. He also appointed overseers, or bishops, to compel the Jews to come in, and do as he had ordered them. Such as rejected it, were continually persecuted, and put to death, with the most grievous tortures. He ordered them to be cruelly scourged, and their bodies to be tore, and, before they expired under their tortures, to be crucified. The women, and the children which they circumcised, were, by his command, hanged; the children hanging from the necks of their crucified parents. Wherever he found any of the sacred books, or of the law, he destroyed them, undoubtedly to prevent the propagation of heretical opinions, and punished with death such as kept them. The same author tells us also, in his History of the Maccabees, that Antiochus put forth an edict, whereby he made it death for any to observe the Jewish religion, and compelled them, by tortures, to abjure it. The inhuman barbarities he exercised upon Eleazar and the Maccabees, because they would not renounce their religion, and sacrifice to his Grecian gods, are not, in some circumstances, to be paralleled by any histories of persecution extant; and will ever render the name and memory of that illustrious tyrant execrable and infamous. It was on the same religious account that he banished the philosophers[27] from all parts of his kingdom; the charge against them being, “their corrupting the youth,” _i. e._ teaching them notions of the gods, different from the common orthodox opinions which were established by law; and commanded Phanias, that such youths as conversed with them should be hanged.

Footnote 26:

Antiq. Jud. l. 12. c. 5.

Footnote 27:

Athen. l. 12. c. 12.

SECT. V. _Persecutions under the Romans._

The very civil constitution of Rome was founded upon persecuting principles. [B]Tertullian[28] tells us, “that it was an ancient decree that no emperor should consecrate a new god, unless he was approved by the senate;” and one of the standing laws of the republic was to this effect, as Cicero[29] gives it: “that no one should have separately new gods, no nor worship privately foreign gods, unless admitted by the commonwealth.” This law he endeavours to vindicate by reason and the light of nature, by adding,[30] “that for persons to worship their own, or new, or foreign gods, would be to introduce confusion and strange ceremonies in religion.” So true a friend was this eminent Roman, and great master of reason, to uniformity of worship; and so little did he see the equity, and indeed necessity of an universal toleration in matters of religion. Upon this principle, after he had reasoned well against the false notions of God that had obtained amongst his countrymen, and the public superstitions of religion, he concludes with what was enough to destroy the force of all his arguments:[31] “It is the part of a wise man to defend the customs of his ancestors, by retaining their sacred rites and ceremonies.” Thus narrow was the foundation of the Roman religion, and thus inconsistent the sentiments of the wisest heathens with all the principles of toleration and universal liberty.

Footnote B:

See note [B] at the end of the volume.

Footnote 28:

Apol. c. 2.

Footnote 29:

De Leg. l. 2.

Footnote 30:

De Leg. l. 2. c. 10.

Footnote 31:

De Divin. l. 2. fin.

And agreeable to this settlement they constantly acted. A remarkable instance of which we have in Livy, the Roman historian; he tells us,[32] “that such a foreign religion spread itself over the city, that either men or the gods seemed entirely changed; that the Roman rites were not only forsaken in private, and within the houses, but that even publicly, in the forum and capitol, great numbers of women flocked together, who neither sacrificed nor prayed to the gods, according to the manner of their ancestors.—This first excited the private indignation of good men, till at length it reached the fathers, and became a public complaint. The senate greatly blamed the Ædiles and capital Triumvirs, that they did not prohibit them; and when they endeavoured to drive away the multitude from the forum, and to throw down the things they had provided for performing their sacred rites, they were like to be torn in pieces. And when the evil grew too great to be cured by inferior magistrates, the senate ordered M. Atilius, the prætor of the city, to prevent the people’s using these religions.” He accordingly published this decree of the senate, that “whoever had any fortune-telling books, or prayers, or ceremonies about sacrifices written down, they should bring all such books and writings to him, before the calends of April; and that no one should use any new or foreign rite of sacrificing in any public or sacred place.”

Footnote 32:

Lib. 25 c. 1

Mecenas,[33] in his Advice to Augustus, says to him: “Perform divine worship in all things exactly according to the custom of your ancestors, and compel others to do so also; and as to those who make any innovations in religion, hate and punish them; and that not only for the sake of the gods, but because those who introduce new deities, excite others to make changes in civil affairs. Hence conspiracies, seditions, and riots, things very dangerous to government.” Accordingly Suetonius, in his life of this prince,[34] gives him this character: “that though he religiously observed the ancient prescribed ceremonies, yet he contemned all other foreign ones; and commended Caius, for that passing by Judea, he would not pay his devotions at Jerusalem.” He also, as the same author tells us,[35] made a law, very much resembling our test act, by which he commanded, “that before any of the senators should take their places in council, they should offer frankincense and wine upon the altar of that god in whose temple they met.” It was no wonder therefore that Christianity, which was so perfectly contrary to the whole system of pagan theology, should be looked upon with an evil eye; or that when the number of Christians increased, they should incur the displeasure of the civil magistrate, and the censure of the penal laws that were in force against them.

Footnote 33:

Apud Dion. Cassium, l. 52.

Footnote 34:

Vit. Aug. c. 93.

Footnote 35:

Ibid. c. 35.

The first public persecution of them by the Romans was begun by that monster of mankind, Nero; who to clear himself of the charge of burning Rome, endeavoured to fix the crime on the Christians; and having thus falsely and tyrannically made them guilty, he put them to death by various methods of exquisite cruelty. But though this was the pretence for this barbarity towards them, yet it evidently appears from undoubted testimonies, that they were before hated upon account of their religion, and were therefore fitter objects to fall a sacrifice to the resentment and fury of the tyrant. For [C]Tacitus tells us,[36] “that they were hated for their crimes.” And what these were, he elsewhere sufficiently informs us, by calling their religion “an execrable superstition.” In like manner Suetonius, in his life of Nero, speaking of the Christians, says, “they were a set of men who had embraced a new and accursed superstition.” And ïtherefore Tacitus farther informs us,[37] that those who confessed themselves Christians, “were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their being hated by all mankind.” So that it is evident from these accounts, that it was through popular hatred of them for their religion, that they were thus sacrificed to the malice and fury of Nero. Many of them he dressed up in the skins of wild beasts, that they might be devoured by dogs. Others he crucified. Some he cloathed in garments of pitch and burnt them, that by their flames he might supply the absence of the day-light.

Footnote C:

See note [C] at the end of the volume.

Footnote 36:

Annal. l. 15. c. 44. Ibid. cap. 16.

Footnote 37:

Annal. l. 15. c. 44.

The persecution begun by Nero was revived, and carried on by Domitian, who put some to death, and banished others upon account of their religion. Eusebius mentions Flavia Domitilla,[38] neice to Flavius Clemens, then consul, as banished for this reason to the island Pontia. Dion the historian’s account of this affair is somewhat different. He tells us,[39] “that Fabius Clemens, the consul, Domitian’s cousin, who had married Flavia Domitilla, a near relation of Domitian, was put to death by him, and Domitilla banished to Pandataria, being both accused of atheism; and that on the same account many who had embraced the Jewish rites were likewise condemned, some of whom were put to death, and others had their estates confiscated.” I think this account can belong to no other but the Christians, whom Dion seems to have confounded with the Jews; a mistake into which he and others might naturally fall, because the first Christians were Jews, and came from the land of Judea. The crime with which these persons were charged, was atheism; the crime commonly imputed to Christians, because they refused to worship the Roman deities. And as there are no proofs, that Domitian ever persecuted the Jews upon account of their religion, nor any intimation of this nature in Josephus, who finished his Antiquities towards the latter end of Domitian’s reign; I think the account of Eusebius, which he declares he took from writers, who were far from being friends to Christianity, is preferable to that of Dion’s; and that therefore these persecutions by Domitian were upon account of Christianity. However, they did not last long; for as Eusebius tells us,[40] he put a stop to them by an edict in their favour. Tertullian[41] also affirms the same; and adds, that he recalled those whom he had banished. So that though this is reckoned by ecclesiastical writers as the second persecution, it doth not appear to have been general, or very severe. Domitian[42] also expelled all the philosophers from Rome and Italy.

Footnote 38:

E. H. l. 3. c. 17, 18.

Footnote 39:

l. 67, in Domit.

Footnote 40:

E. H. l. 3. c. 20.

Footnote 41:

Apol. c. 5.

Footnote 42:

Suet. in vit. Domit. c. 10.

Under Trajan, otherwise a most excellent prince, began the third persecution, in the 14th year of his reign. In answer to a letter of Pliny, he ordered: “that the Christians should not be sought after, but that if they were accused and convicted of being Christians they should be punished; such only excepted as should deny themselves to be Christians, and give an evident proof of it by worshipping his gods.” These were to receive pardon upon this their repentance, how much soever they might have been suspected before. From this imperial rescript it is abundantly evident, that this persecution of the Christians by Trajan was purely on the score of their religion, because he orders, that whosoever was accused and convicted of being a Christian should be punished with death, unless he renounced his profession, and sacrificed to the gods. All that was required, says Tertullian,[43] was “merely to confess the name, without any cognizance being taken of any crime.” Pliny himself, in his letter to the emperor, acquits them of every thing of this nature, and tells him, “that all they acknowledged was, that their whole crime or error consisted in this, that at stated times they were used to meet before day-light, and to sing an hymn to Christ as God; and that they bound themselves by an oath not to commit any wickedness, such as thefts, robberies, adulteries, and the like.” And to be assured of the truth of this, he put two maids to the torture, and after examining them, found them guilty of nothing but “a wicked and unreasonable superstition.” This is the noblest vindication of the purity and innocency of the Christian assemblies, and abundantly justifies the account of Eusebius,[44] from Hegesippus: “that the church continued until these times as a virgin pure and uncorrupted;” and proves beyond all contradiction, that the persecution raised against them was purely on a religious account, and not for any immoralities and crimes against the laws, that could be proved against the Christians; though their enemies slandered them with the vilest, and hereby endeavoured to render them hateful to the whole world. “Why,” says Tertullian,[45] “doth a Christian suffer, but for being of their number? Hath any one proved incest, or cruelty upon us, during this long space of time? No; it is for our innocence, probity, justice, chastity, faith, veracity, and for the living God that we are burnt alive.” Pliny was forced to acquit them from every thing but “an unreasonable superstition,” _i. e._ their resolute adherence to the faith of Christ. And yet, though innocent in all other respects, when they were brought before his tribunal, he treated them in this unrighteous manner: he only asked them, whether they were Christians? If they confessed it, he asked them the same question again and again, adding threatenings to his questions. If they persevered in their confession, he condemned them to death, because whatever their confession might be, he was very sure, “that their stubbornness and inflexible obstinacy deserved punishment.” So that without being convicted of any crime, but that of constancy in their religion, this equitable heathen, this rational philosopher, this righteous judge, condemns them to a cruel death. And for this conduct the emperor, his master, commends him. For in answer to Pliny’s question, “Whether he should go on to punish the name itself, though chargeable with no crimes, or the crimes only which attended the name?” Trajan in his rescript, after commending Pliny, orders, “that if they were accused and convicted of being Christians, they should be put to death, unless they renounced that name, and sacrificed to his gods.” Tertullian and Athenagoras, in their Apologies, very justly inveigh with great warmth against this imperial rescript; and indeed, a more shameful piece of iniquity was never practised in the darkest times of popery. I hope also my reader will observe, that this was lay-persecution, and owed its rise to the religious zeal of one of the best of the Roman emperors, and not only to the contrivances of cruel and designing priests; that it was justified and carried on by a very famous and learned philosopher, whose reason taught him, that what he accounted superstition, if incurable, was to be punished with death; and that it was managed with great fury and barbarity, multitudes of persons in the several provinces being destroyed merely on account of the Christian name, by various and exquisite methods of cruelty.

Footnote 43:

Apol. c. 2.

Footnote 44:

E. H. l. 3. c. 32.

Footnote 45:

Ad Scapul.

The rescript of Adrian, his successor, to Minutius Fundanus, pro-consul of Asia, seems to have somewhat abated the fury of this persecution, though not wholly to have put an end to it. Tertullian tells us[46] that Arrius Antoninus, afterwards emperor, then pro-consul of Asia, when the Christians came in a body before his tribunal, ordered some of them to be put to death; and said to others: “You wretches! If you will die, ye have precipices and halters.” He also says, that several other governors of provinces punished some few Christians, and dismissed the rest; so that the persecution was not so general, nor severe as under Trajan.

Footnote 46:

Ad Scap.

Under Antoninus Pius the Christians were very cruelly treated in some of the provinces of Asia, which occasioned Justin Martyr to write his first Apology. It doth not, however, appear to have been done, either by the order or consent of this emperor. On the contrary, he wrote letters to the cities of Asia, and particularly to those of Larissa, Thessalonica, Athens, and all the Greeks, that they should create no new troubles to them. It is probable, that the Asiatic cities persecuted them by virtue of some former imperial edicts, which do not appear ever to have been recalled; and, perhaps, with the connivance of Antoninus Philosophus, the colleague and successor of Pius in the empire.

Under him began, as it is generally accounted, the fourth persecution, upon which Justin Martyr wrote his second Apology, Meliton his, and Athenagoras his Legation or Embassy for the Christians. Meliton, as Eusebius relates it,[47] complains of it as “an almost unheard of thing, that pious men were now persecuted, and greatly distressed by new decrees throughout Asia; that most impudent informers, who were greedy of other persons’ substance, took occasion from the imperial edicts, to plunder others who were entirely innocent.“ After this he humbly beseeches the emperor, that he would not suffer the Christians to be any longer used in so cruel and unrighteous a manner. [E]Justin Martyr,[48] in the account he gives of the martyrdom of Ptolemæus, assures us, that the only question asked him was, “whether he was a Christian?” And upon his confession that he was, he was immediately ordered to the slaughter. Lucius was also put to death for making the same confession, and asking Urbicus the prefect, why he condemned Ptolemy, who was neither convicted of adultery, rape, murder, theft, robbery, nor of any other crime, but only for owning himself to be a Christian. From these accounts it is abundantly evident, that it was still the very name of a Christian that was made capital; and that these cruelties were committed by an emperor who was a great master of reason and philosophy; not as punishments upon offenders against the laws and public peace, but purely for the sake of religion and conscience; committed, to maintain and propagate idolatry, which is contrary to all the principles of reason and philosophy, and upon persons of great integrity and virtue in heart and life, for their adherence to the worship of one God, which is the foundation of all true religion, and one of the plainest and most important articles of it. The tortures which the persecutors of the Christians applied, and the cruelties they exercised on them, enough, one would think, to have overcome the firmest human resolution and patience, could never extort from them a confession of that guilt their enemies would gladly have fixed on them. And yet innocent as they were in all respects, they were treated with the utmost indignity, and destroyed by such inventions of cruelty, as were abhorrent to all the principles of humanity and goodness. They were, indeed, accused of atheism, _i. e._ for not believing in, and worshipping the fictitious gods of the heathens. This was the cry of the multitude against [F]Polycarp:[49] “This is the doctor of Asia, the father of the Christians, the subverter of our gods, who teaches many that they must not perform the sacred rites, nor worship our deities.” This was the reason of the tumultuous cry against him, “away with these atheists.” But would not one have imagined that reason and philosophy should have informed the emperor, that this kind of atheism was a real virtue, and deserved to be encouraged and propagated amongst mankind? No: reason and philosophy here failed him, and his blind attachment to his country’s gods caused him to shed much innocent blood, and to become the destroyer of “the saints of the living God.”[50] At last, indeed, the emperor seems to have been sensible of the great injustice of this persecution, and by an edict ordered they should be no longer punished for being Christians.

Footnote 47:

E. H. l. 4. C. 26.

Footnote E:

See note [E] at the end of the volume.

Footnote 48:

Apol. 2^{da.} c. 42. Edit. Thirlb.

Footnote F:

See note [F] at the end of the volume.

Footnote 49:

Euseb. E. H. l. 4. c. 15.

Footnote 50:

Id. l. 4. c. 18.

I shall not trouble my reader with an account of this persecution as carried on by Severus, Decius, Gallus, Valerianus, Dioclesian, and others of the Roman emperors; but only observe in general, that the most excessive and outrageous barbarities were made use of upon all who would not blaspheme Christ, and offer incense to the imperial gods: they were publicly whipped; drawn by the heels through the streets of cities; racked till every bone of their bodies was disjointed; had their teeth beat out; their noses, hands and ears cut off; sharp pointed spears ran under their nails; were tortured with melted lead thrown on their naked bodies; had their eyes dug out; their limbs cut off; were condemned to the mines; ground between stones; stoned to death; burnt alive; thrown headlong from high buildings; beheaded; smothered in burning lime-kilns; ran through the body with sharp spears; destroyed with hunger, thirst, and cold; thrown to the wild beasts; broiled on gridirons with slow fires; cast by heaps into the sea; crucified; scraped to death with sharp shells; torn in pieces by the boughs of trees; and, in a word, destroyed by all the various methods that the most diabolical subtlety and malice could devise.

It must indeed be confessed, that under the latter emperors who persecuted the Christians, the simplicity and purity of the Christian religion were greatly corrupted, and that ambition, pride and luxury, had too generally prevailed both amongst the pastors and people. [G]Cyprian, who lived under the Decian persecution, writing concerning it to the presbyters and deacons,[51] says: “It must be owned and confessed, that this outrageous and heavy calamity, which hath almost devoured our flock, and continues to devour it to this day, hath happened to us because of our sins, since we keep not the way of the Lord, nor observe his heavenly commands given to us for our salvation. Though our Lord did the will of his Father, yet we do not the will of the Lord. Our principal study is to get money and estates; we follow after pride; we are at leisure for nothing but emulation and quarrelling; and have neglected the simplicity of the faith. We have renounced this world in words only, and not in deed. Every one studies to please himself, and to displease others.” After Cyprian, Eusebius the historian gives a sad account of the degeneracy of Christians, about the time of the Dioclesian persecution: he tells us,[52] “That through too much liberty they grew negligent and slothful, envying and reproaching one another; waging, as it were, civil wars between themselves, bishops quarrelling with bishops, and the people divided into parties: that hypocrisy and deceit were grown to the highest pitch of wickedness; that they were become so insensible, as not so much as to think of appeasing the divine anger, but that, like atheists, they thought the world destitute of any providential government and care, and thus added one crime to another; that the bishops themselves had thrown off all care of religion, were perpetually contending with one another, and did nothing but quarrel with, and threaten, and envy, and hate one another; were full of ambition, and tyrannically used their power.” This was the deplorable state of the Christian church, which God, as Eusebius well observes, first punished with a gentle hand; but when they grew hardened and incurable in their vices, he was pleased to let in the most grievous persecution upon them, under Dioclesian, which exceeded in severity and length all that had been before.

Footnote G:

See note [G] at the end of the volume.

Footnote 51:

Epist. xi. Ed. Fell.

Footnote 52:

E. H. l. 8. c. 1.

From these accounts it evidently appears, that the Christian world alone is not chargeable with the guilt of persecution on the score of religion. It was practised long before Christianity was in being, and first taught the Christians by the persecuting heathens. The most eminent philosophers espoused and vindicated persecuting principles; and emperors, otherwise excellent and good, made no scruple of destroying multitudes on a religious account, such as Trajan, and Aurelius Verus. And I think I may farther add, that the method of propagating religion by cruelty and death, owes its invention to lay policy and craft; and that how servilely soever the priesthood hath thought fit to imitate them, yet that they have never exceeded them in rigour and severity. I can trace out the footsteps but of very few priests in the foregoing accounts; nor have I ever heard of more excessive cruelties than those practised by Antiochus, the Egyptian heretic eaters, and the Roman emperors. I may farther add on this important article, that it is the laity who have put it in the power of the priests to persecute, and rendered it worth their while to do it; they have done it by the authority of the civil laws, as well as employed lay hands to execute the drudgery of it. The emoluments of honours and riches that have been annexed to the favourite religion and priesthood is the establishment of civil society, whereby religion hath been made extremely profitable, and the “gains of godliness” worth contending for. Had the laity been more sparing in their grants, and their civil constitutions formed upon the generous and equitable principle of an universal toleration, persecution had never been heard of amongst men. The priests would have wanted not only the power, but the inclination to persecute; since few persons have such an attachment either to what they account religion or truth, as to torment and destroy others for the sake of it, unless tempted with the views of worldly ambition, power and grandeur. These views will have the same influence upon all bad minds, whether of the priesthood or laity, who, when they are determined at all hazards to pursue them, will use all methods, right or wrong, to accomplish and secure them.

As, therefore, the truth of history obliges me to compliment the laity with the honour of this excellent invention, for the support and propagation of religion; and as its continuance in the world to this day is owing to the protection and authority of their laws, and to certain political ends and purposes they have to serve thereby; the loading the priesthood only, or principally, with the infamy and guilt of it, is a mean and groundless scandal; and to be perpetually objecting the cruelties that have been practised by some who have called themselves Christians, on others for conscience-sake, as an argument against the excellency of the Christian religion, or with a view to prejudice others against it, is an artifice unworthy a person of common understanding and honesty. Let all equally share the guilt, who are equally chargeable with it; and let principles be judged of by what they are in themselves, and not by the abuses which bad men may make of them. If any argument can be drawn from these, we may as well argue against the truth and excellency of philosophy, because Cicero espoused the principles of persecution, and Antoninus the philosopher authorized all the cruelties attending it. But the question in these cases is not, what one who calls himself a philosopher or a Christian doth, but what true philosophy and genuine Christianity lead to and teach; and if persecution be the natural effect of either of them, it is neither in my inclination or intention to defend them.

SECT. VI. _Persecutions by the Mahometans._

It may be thought needless to bring the Mahometans into this reckoning, it being well known that their avowed method of propagating religion is by the sword; and that it was a maxim of Mahomet, “not to suffer two religions to be in Arabia.” But this is not all; as they are enemies to all other religions but their own, so they are against toleration of heretics amongst themselves, and have oftentimes punished them with death. [H]Hottinger[53] gives us an account of a famous dispute amongst them concerning the Coran, whether it was “the created” or “uncreated word of God?” Many of their califfs were of opinion that it was created, and issued their orders that the Musselmen should be compelled to believe it.[54] And as for those who denied it, many were whipped; others put in chains; and others murdered. Many, also, were slain, for not praying in a right posture towards the temple at Mecca.[55] The same author farther tells us, that there are some heretics, who, whenever they are found, are burnt to death. The enmity between the Persians and Turks,[56] upon account of their religious difference, is irreconcileable and mortal; so that they would, each of them, rather tolerate a Christian than one another. But I pass from these things to the history of Christian persecution.

Footnote H:

See note [H] at the end of the volume.

Footnote 53:

Histor. Orient. p. 252.

Footnote 54:

Pag. 362.

Footnote 55:

Pag. 366.

Footnote 56:

Ibid.