nant to the equity of his government; and he strictly requires, for
the conviction of those to whom the guilt of Christianity is imputed,
the positive evidence of a fair and open accuser. It is likewise
probable, that the persons who assumed so invidiuous an office, were
obliged to declare the grounds of their suspicions, to specify (both in
respect to time and place) the secret assemblies, which their
Christian adversary had frequented, and to disclose a great number of
circumstances, which were concealed with the most vigilant jealousy from
the eye of the profane. If they succeeded in their prosecution, they
were exposed to the resentment of a considerable and active party, to
the censure of the more liberal portion of mankind, and to the ignominy
which, in every age and country, has attended the character of an
informer. If, on the contrary, they failed in their proofs, they
incurred the severe and perhaps capital penalty, which, according to a
law published by the emperor Hadrian, was inflicted on those who falsely
attributed to their fellow-citizens the crime of Christianity. The
violence of personal or superstitious animosity might sometimes prevail
over the most natural apprehensions of disgrace and danger but it cannot
surely be imagined, that accusations of so unpromising an appearance
were either lightly or frequently undertaken by the Pagan subjects of
the Roman empire. [60] [60a]

[Footnote 59: Plin. Epist. x. 98. Tertullian (Apolog. c. 5) considers
this rescript as a relaxation of the ancient penal laws, "quas Trajanus
exparte frustratus est:" and yet Tertullian, in another part of his
Apology, exposes the inconsistency of prohibiting inquiries, and
enjoining punishments.]

[Footnote 60: Eusebius (Hist. Ecclesiast. l. iv. c. 9) has preserved
the edict of Hadrian. He has likewise (c. 13) given us one still more
favorable, under the name of Antoninus; the authenticity of which is
not so universally allowed. The second Apology of Justin contains some
curious particulars relative to the accusations of Christians. *
Note: Professor Hegelmayer has proved the authenticity of the edict of
Antoninus, in his Comm. Hist. Theol. in Edict. Imp. Antonini. Tubing.
1777, in 4to.--G. ----Neander doubts its authenticity, (vol. i. p. 152.)
In my opinion, the internal evidence is decisive against it.--M]

[Footnote 60a: The enactment of this law affords strong presumption,
that accusations of the "crime of Christianity," wer