70 L A C T A 
his native country, we have no certain information. Some 
have conjectured that he was a native of Firmum, now 
Fermo in Italy, and that from thence he was called Fir- 
jnianus ; but it is more generally believed that he was an 
African. The latter hypothefis derives fome weight from 
the circumftance of his being educated under Arnobius, 
who taught rhetoric at Sicca in Africa; and it is confirm¬ 
ed by his writing’an itinerary from Africa to Nicomedia, 
which probably contained a defcription of his own jour¬ 
ney to that city. While he ft udied at Sicca, he wrote a 
book, entitled, Sympqfiitm, or the Banquet; by which he 
acquired fo great a reputation, that, when the emperor Di¬ 
ocletian entertained the defign of rendering Nicomedia a 
rival to Rome, he was fent for by him to teach rhetoric 
in that city. As, however, he had not many fcholars 
there, it being inhabited chiefly by Greeks, who had no 
great value for Roman eloquence, he employed himfelf 
principally in writing. It has been fuppofed by fome, 
that Laftantius was originally a heathen, and converted 
when young to the Chriftian religion. This point has 
been examined by Lardner, with his ufual attention and 
judgment; who, from there being no clear intimations of 
his heathenifm, or of his converiion to Chriftianity, in 
his own works, or in any ancient writers who have men¬ 
tioned him, was rather inclined to think, that he was from 
the beginning educated in the Chriftian religion; and 
that lie was a Chriftian when Diocletian's perfecution com¬ 
menced at Nicomedia, is unqueftionable. How he palled 
throngli that long and dreadful perfecution, we are not 
informed. It appears, however, that, whether owing to 
the unprofitablenefs of his profeflion and literary purfuits, 
or to the difficulties of the time in which he lived, he was 
generally in narrow circumftance*, and fometimes fo poor 
as to want even neceflaries. This extreme poverty Du- 
pin and Tillemont are of opinion was chofen and volun¬ 
tary, and a proof of his exalted virtue in the exercife of 
mortification and felf-denial; but to fuch a notion, the 
language of St. Jerome, from which it is deduced, does 
not give any countenance. From this ftate of poverty it 
is reafonable to conclude that he was relieved, when in¬ 
vited by the emperor Conftantine into Gaul, and appoint¬ 
ed Latin preceptor to his fon, Crifpus Caefar; and, when 
that prince had been put to death by his father, it feems 
probable that much notice was not taken of him after¬ 
wards, but that, to the difgrace of the emperor, he was 
left, without a proper provilion, to ftruggle in his old age 
yith inconvenience and penury. We do not know any 
thing more of the life of Ladfantius, than the particulars 
already mentioned, excepting that he lived to a very ad¬ 
vanced period, and that he never pleaded as an advocate 
at the bar. With refpeft to the time of his leaving Ni¬ 
comedia, or of his coming into Gaul, or of his death, no¬ 
thing can with any certainty be now determined. 
We proceed to lay before our readers a fummary of the 
leading opinions of this Chriftian father. He often fpeaks 
of the nature and defign of the Chriftian revelation, as 
fuited to promote the general good of all, of every age, 
fex, and condition ; fo that all may attain to juft fenti- 
ments of God, and be directed and affifted in the way of 
fiolinefs, and obtain everlafting happinefs : and he afferts 
It to be in the power of the meaneft and pooreft of men 
to attain to righteoulheis. He afferts the freedom of man’s 
will, or, his- power to do good'or evil. Fie was of opi¬ 
nion, that another life, or a future ftate of happinefs for 
good rnen, may be proved by reafon. He did not deny 
the eternity of hell-torments. He often afferts the great 
value of repentance, and fays, that it entirely obliterates 
the iniquity, or guilt, of him who had finned; founding 
his arguments upon the fuppofitioii, that true virtue alone 
recommends men to the divine acceptance, and that God 
defires nothing of men, but fincere virtue, or true hoii- 
«efs.‘ Of the ends and views of Chvift’s coming, and par¬ 
ticularly of his death, he fays, that Chriit was fent to teach 
all nations under heaven the knowledge and vvorihip of 
ilie one only true God 5 as. a mafter of virtue, to teach 
N T I U S. 
the doClrine of righteouChefs, and to be an example of 
it, that men following him might obtain eternal life; that 
he was alio to deliver men from an excefiive fear of death, 
and enable them to endure it with courage and patience; 
and that he lived in a mean condition, and underwent 
the ignominious death of the crofs, that he might be a 
complete example of virtue, and of patience under fuf- 
ferings, and that he might more efpecially encourage fuch 
as are poor and mean in this world. He lays nothing of 
Chrift’s death, according 10 the creed of the modem or¬ 
thodox, as a propitiatory facrifice for fin, or a fatisfaftioit 
made to divine juftice for the fins of the human race. He, 
likewife, in his Epiltles, according to Jerome, denied the 
perfonality of the HolyGhoft; and, in others of his writ¬ 
ings, which have reached modern times, fpeaks differently 
from the prefent doctrine of the church concerning the 
trinity, and feveral other points. Hence he has been cha- 
rabterifed by many learned moderns asamiferable divine, 
who had very little knowledge of the Chriftian doctrine. 
Some have charged him with Manichreifm ; but he is un- 
anfwerably vindicated from that accufation by Lardner, 
He entertained the common notion of that time concern¬ 
ing the fall of many of the angels; and he expected a 
terreIt rial reign of Chriit for a thoufand years before the- 
general judgment, which happy period he thought to be 
near, and that it could not be deferred more than two hun¬ 
dred jrears. 
Speaking of his charadter as a writer, Dupin fays, that 
he is the molt eloquent of all the ecclefiaitical authors 
who wrote in Latin. His ivyle is pure, equal, and natu¬ 
ral; in a word, it is extremely like Cicero’s; and he jultly 
deferves the name of the Chriftian Cicero, not only for 
the clearnefs and purity of his language, but alfo for the 
turn of his phrafe, and his manner of writing; which fo 
much refembles that of Tully, that the molt accurate cri¬ 
tics have found it difficult to point out any difference be¬ 
tween them : nay, there have been fome, as we are in¬ 
formed by Picus Mirandula, who have not hefitated in 
preferring his ftyle to Cicero’s. Lardner pronounces him 
to have been “an honour and ornament to the Chriftian 
profeflion in his day ; who employed his fine parts and ex- 
tenfive learning in the ferviceof religion, without worldly 
views of any kind. The time in which he lived fecures 
him a kind of veneration. He faw the quiet and peace¬ 
ful ftate of the church, before Dioclefian’s perfecution; 
he was alfo witnefs of that dreadful feene, and afterwards 
law the flourifhing condition of Chriftians under Conftan¬ 
tine. His eminent abilities recommended him to the 
elleem of two great emperors, of different religions. His 
uncommon honefty and fimplicity, and earneft zeal for* 
the Chriftian religion, and all truth in general, appear in 
his wmrks ; where alfo his learning is very confpicuous. 
But we had feen more proofs of this, if his Epiltles, and 
other works now loft, had come down to us. He had, as 
it feems, a certain vehemence and impetuofity of natural 
temper, not uncommon in Africans, which upon fome 
occafions hindered his confidering and weighing what 
might be faid on both Tides of a queltion. At the fame 
time, poifibly, we are indebted to that fire, which iup- 
ported him in the fatigues of acquiring knowledge, and 
then communicating it to others.” His principal work is 
entitled InJHtutionum Libri VII. and is a noble production, 
containing a raoll folid and fpirited confutation of the 
writings of two heathens of note, who publilhed pieces 
againft the Chriftian religion at the commencement of the 
perfecution under Dioclelian ; and intended, at the fame 
time, as a general anfvver to all others, who already had, 
or might afterwards oppole the Chriftian doctrine. Cri¬ 
tics have widely differed in their judgment concerning 
the time of writing and publilhing them ; but we con¬ 
ceive that the weight of evidence preponderates in favour* 
of the opinion of Cave and Lardner, who confider them 
to have been compofed, for the molt part at leaft, under 
the perfecution of Dioclelian, though perhaps they were 
not publilhed fill after it was over. Of the preceding we 
