[1]A VINDICATION, &c. &c.

I.

‘The remarkable mode of quotation which Mr. Gibbon adopts muſt immediately ſtrike every one who turns to his notes. He ſome⯑times only mentions the author, perhaps the book; and often leaves the reader the toil of finding out, or rather gueſſing at the paſ⯑ſage. The policy, however, is not without its deſign and uſe. By endeavouring to de⯑prive us of the means of comparing him with the authorities he cites, he flattered himſelf, no doubt, that he might ſafely have recourſe to miſrepreſentation ⁵.’ Such is the ſtyle of Mr. Davis; who in another place⁶ mentions this mode of quotation ‘as a good artifice to eſcape detection;’ and applauds, with an agreeable irony, his own labours in turning over a few pages of the Theodoſian Code.

I ſhall not deſcend to animadvert on the rude and illiberal ſtrain of this paſſage, and I will frankly own that my indignation is loſt in aſto⯑niſhment. The Fifteenth and Sixteenth Chap⯑ters of my Hiſtory are illuſtrated by three hundred and eighty-three Notes; and the nakedneſs of a few Notes, which are not ac⯑companied by any quotation, is amply com⯑penſated by a much greater number, which contain two, three, or perhaps four diſtinct [12] references; ſo that upon the whole my ſtock of quotations which ſupport and juſtify my facts cannot amount to leſs than eight hundred or a thouſand. As I had often felt the incon⯑venience of the looſe and general method of quoting which is ſo falſely imputed to me, I have carefully diſtinguiſhed the books, the chap⯑ters, the ſections, the pages of the authors to whom I referred, with a degree of accuracy and attention, which might claim ſome gratitude, as it has ſeldom been ſo regularly practiſed by any hiſtorical writers. And here I muſt con⯑feſs ſome obligation to Mr. Davis, who, by ſtaking my credit and his own on a circum⯑ſtance ſo obvious and palpable, has given me ſo early an opportunity of ſubmitting the merits of our cauſe, or at leaſt of our characters, to he judgment of the Public. Hereafter, when I am ſummoned to defend myſelf againſt the imputation of miſquoting the text, or miſrepreſenting the ſenſe of a Greek or La⯑tin author, it will not be in my power to com⯑municate the knowledge of the languages, or the poſſeſſion of the books, to thoſe readers who may be deſtitute either of one or of the other, and the part which they are obliged to take between aſſertions equally ſtrong and per⯑emptory, may ſometimes be attended with doubt and heſitation. But in the preſent in⯑ſtance, [13] every reader who will give himſelf the trouble of conſulting the Firſt Volume of my Hiſtory, is a competent judge of the queſtion. I exhort, I ſolicit him to run his eye down the coloumns of Notes, and to count how many of the quotations are minute and particular, how few are vague and general. When he has ſatisfied himſelf by this eaſy computation, there is a word which may naturally ſuggeſt it⯑ſelf; an epithet, which I ſhould be ſorry either to deſerve or uſe; the boldneſs of Mr. Davis's aſſertion, and the confidence of my appeal will tempt, nay, perhaps, will force him to apply that epithet either to one or to the other of the adverſe parties.

I have confeſſed that a critical eye may diſ⯑cover ſome looſe and general references; but as they bear a very inconſiderable proportion to the whole maſs, they cannot ſupport, or even ex⯑cuſe a falſe and ungenerous accuſation, which muſt reflect diſhonour either on the object or on the author of it. If the examples in which I have occaſionally deviated from my ordinary practice were ſpecified and examined, I am perſuaded that they might always be fairly attri⯑buted to ſome one of the following reaſons. 1. In ſome rare inſtances, which I have never attempted to conceal, I have been obliged to adopt quotations which were expreſſed with leſs accuracy than I could have wiſhed. 2. I may have accidentally recollected the ſenſe of a [14] paſſage which I had formerly read, without being able to find the place, or even to tran⯑ſcribe from memory the preciſe words. 3. The whole tract (as in a remarkable inſtance of the ſecond Apology of Juſtin Martyr) was ſo ſhort, that a more particular deſcription was not re⯑quired. 4. The form of the compoſition ſup⯑plied the want of a local reference; the pre⯑ceding mention of the year fixed the paſſage of of the annaliſt, and the reader was guided to the proper ſpot in the commentaries of Grotius, Valeſius or Godefroy, by the more accurate cita⯑tion of their original author. 5. The idea which I was deſirous of communicating to the reader, was ſometimes the general reſult of the author or treatiſe that I had quoted; nor was it poſ⯑ſible to confine, within the narrow limits of a particular reference, the ſenſe or ſpirit which was mingled with the whole maſs. Theſe mo⯑tives are either laudable or at leaſt innocent. In two of theſe exceptions my ordinary mode of citation was ſuperfluous; in the other three it was impracticable.

In quoting a compariſon which Tertullian had uſed to expreſs the rapid increaſe of the Marcionites, I expreſsly declared that I was obliged to quote it from memory⁷ If I have been guilty of comparing them to bees inſtead of waſps, I can however moſt ſincerely diſclaim [15] the ſagacious ſuſpicion of Mr. Davis⁸, who imagines that I was tempted to amend the ſimile of Tertullian from an improper partiality for thoſe odious Heretics.

A reſcript of Diocletian, which declared the old law (not an old law⁹), had been alleged by me on the reſpectable authority of Fra-Paolo. The Examiner, who thinks that he has turned over the pages of the Theodoſian Code, in⯑forms¹ his reader that it may be found, l. vi. tit. xxiv. leg. 8.; he will be ſurpriſed to learn that this reſcript could not be found in a code where it does not exiſt, but that it may diſtinctly be read in the ſame number, the ſame title, and the ſame book of the CODE OF JUSTINIAN. He who is ſevere ſhould at leaſt be juſt: yet I ſhould probably have diſdained this minute ani⯑madverſion, unleſs it had ſerved to diſplay the general ignorance of the critic in the Hiſtory of the Roman Juriſprudence. If Mr. Davis had not been an abſolute ſtranger, the moſt treacherous guide could not have perſuaded that a reſcript of Diocletian was to be found in the Theodoſian Code, which was deſigned only to preſerve the laws of Conſtantine and his ſuc⯑ceſſors. Compendioſam (ſays Theodoſius him⯑ſelf) Divalium Conſtitutionum ſcientiam, ex D. Conſtantini temporibus roboramus. (Novell. ad calcem Cod. Theod. l. i. tit. i. leg. 1.)

II.

Few objects are below the notice of Mr. Davis, and his criticiſm is never ſo formidable as when it is directed againſt the guilty cor⯑rector of the preſs, who on ſome occaſions has ſhewn himſelf negligent of my fame and of his own. Some errors have ariſen from the omiſ⯑ſion of letters; from the confuſion of cyphers, which perhaps were not very diſtinctly marked in the original manuſcript. The two of the Roman, and the eleven of the Arabic, numerals have been unfortunately miſtaken for each other; the ſimilar forms of a 2 and a 3, a 5 and a 6, a 3 and a 8, have improperly been tranſpoſed; Antolycus for Autolycus, Idolatria for Idololatria, Holſterius for Holſtenius, had eſcaped my own obſervation, as well as the diligence of the perſon who was em⯑ployed to reviſe the ſheets of my Hiſtory. Theſe important errors, from the indulgence of a deluded Public, have been multiplied in the numerous impreſſions of three different editions; and for the preſent I can only lament my own defects, whilſt I deprecate the wrath of Mr. Davis, who ſeems ready to infer that I cannot either read or write. I ſincerely ad⯑mire his patient induſtry, which I deſpair of being able to imitate; but if a future edition ſhould ever be required, I could wiſh to ob⯑tain, on any reaſonable terms, the ſervices of ſo uſeful a corrector.

III.

Mr. Davis had been directed by my refer⯑ences to ſeveral paſſages of Optatus Milevita⯑nus², and of the Bibliotheque Eccleſiaſtique of M. Dupin³. He eagerly conſults thoſe places, is unſucceſsful, and is happy. Sometimes the place which I have quoted does not offer any of the circumſtances which I had alleged, ſometimes only a few; and ſometimes the ſame paſſage exhibit a ſenſe totally adverſe and re⯑pugnant to mine. Theſe ſhameful miſrepre⯑ſentations incline Mr. Davis to ſuſpect that I have never conſulted the original (not even of a common French book!) and he aſſerts his right to cenſure my preſumption. Theſe important charges from two diſtinct articles in the liſt of Miſrepreſentations; but Mr. Davis has amuſed himſelf with adding to the ſlips of the pen or of the preſs, ſome complaints of his ill ſucceſs, when he attempted to verify my quotations from Cyprian and from Shaw's Travels⁴.

The ſucceſs of Mr. Davis would indeed have been ſomewhat extraordinary, unleſs he had conſulted the ſame editions, as well as the ſame places. I ſhall content myſelf with mention⯑ing [18] the editions which I have uſed, and with aſſuring him, that if he renews his ſearch, he will not, or rather, that he will be, diſap⯑pointed.

IV.

The nature of my ſubject had led me to mention, not the real origin of the Jews, but their firſt appearance to the eyes of other na⯑tions; and I cannot avoid tranſcribing the ſhort paſſage in which I had introduced them. ‘The Jews, who under the Aſſyrian and Per⯑ſian monarchies had languiſhed for many ages the moſt deſpiſed portion of their ſlaves, emerged from their obſcurity under the ſucceſſors of Alexander. And as they multiplied to a ſurpriſing degree in the Eaſt, and afterwards in the Weſt, they ſoon ex⯑cited the curioſity and wonder of other na⯑tions⁵.’ This ſimple abridgment ſeems in its turn to have excited the wonder of Mr. Davis, whoſe ſurpriſe almoſt renders him eloquent. ‘[19]What a ſtrange aſſemblage,’ ſays he, ‘is here. It is like Milton's Chaos, without bound, without dimenſion, where time and place are loſt. In ſhort, what does this diſ⯑play afford us, but a deal of boyiſh co⯑louring to the prejudice of much good hiſ⯑tory⁶.’ If I rightly underſtand Mr. Davis's language, he cenſures, as a piece of confuſed declamation, the paſſage which he has pro⯑duced from my hiſtory; and if I collect the angry criticiſms which he has ſcattered over twenty pages of controverſy⁷, I think I can diſcover that there is hardly a period, or even a word, in this unfortunate paſſage, which has obtained the approbation of the Examiner.

As nothing can eſcape his vigilance, he cen⯑ſures me for including the twelve tribes of Iſ⯑rael under the common appellation of JEWS⁸, and for extending the name of ASSYRIANS to the ſubjects of the Kings of Babylon⁹; and again cenſures me, becauſe ſome facts which are affirmed or inſinuated in my text, do not agree with the ſtrict and proper limits which he has aſſigned to thoſe national denominations. The name of Jews has indeed been eſtabliſhed by the ſcepter of the tribe of Judah, and, in the times which precede the captivity, it is uſed in the more [20] general ſenſe with ſome ſort of impropriety; but ſurely I am not peculiarly charged with a fault which has been conſecrated by the con⯑ſent of twenty centuries, the practice of the beſt writers, ancient as well as modern (ſee Joſephus and Prideaux, even in the titles of their reſpective works), and by the uſage of mo⯑dern languages, of the Latin, the Greek, and, if I may credit Reland, of the Hebrew itſelf (ſee Paleſtin, l. i. c. 6.). With regard to the other word, that of Aſſyrians, moſt aſ⯑ſuredly I will not loſe myſelf in the labyrinth of the Aſiatic monarchies before the age of Cyrus; nor indeed is any more required for my juſtification, than to prove that Babylon was conſidered as the capital and royal ſeat of Aſſyria. If Mr. Davis were a man of learn⯑ing, I might be moroſe enough to cenſure his ignorance of ancient geography, and to over⯑whelm him under a load of quotations, which might be collected and tranſcribed with very little trouble: But as I muſt ſuppoſe that he has received a claſſical education, I might have expected him to have read the firſt book of Herodotus, where that hiſtorian deſcribes, in the cleareſt and moſt elegant terms, the ſitu⯑ation and greatneſs of Babylon: [...] [21] (Clio, c. 178.) I may be ſurpriſed that he ſhould be ſo little converſant with the Cyropoedia of Xenophon, in the whole courſe of which the King of Babylon, the adverſary of the Medes and Perſians, is repeatedly men⯑tioned by the ſtyle and title of THE ASSYRIAN, [...] (l. ii. p. 102, 103, Edit. Hutchinſon.) But there remains ſomething more: and Mr. Davis muſt apply the ſame reproaches of inaccuracy, if not ignorance, to the Prophet Iſaiah, who, in the name of Jehovah, announcing the down⯑fal of Babylon and the deliverance of Iſrael, declares with an oath; ‘And as I have pur⯑poſed the thing ſhall ſtand: to cruſh the ASSYRIAN in my land, and to trample him on my mountains. Then ſhall his yoke de⯑part from off them; and his burthen ſhall be removed from off their ſhoulders.’ (Iſaiah, xiv. 24, 25. Lowth's new tranſlation. See likewiſe the Biſhop's note, p. 98.)

The jealouſy which Mr. Davis affects for the honour of the Jewiſh people will not ſuffer him to allow that they were ſlaves to the conquerors of the Eaſt; and while he acknowledges that they were tributary and dependent, he ſeems deſirous of introducing, or even inventing, ſome milder expreſſion of the ſtate of vaſſal⯑age [22] and ſubſervience ¹; from whence Tacitus aſ⯑ſumed the words of deſpectiſſima pars ſervientium. Has Mr. Davis never heard of the diſtinction of civil and political ſlavery? Is he ignorant that even the natural and victorious ſubjects of an Aſiatic deſpot have been deſervedly marked with the opprobrious epithet of ſlaves by every writer acquainted with the name and advan⯑tage of freedom? Does he not know that un⯑der ſuch a government, the yoke is impoſed with double weight on the necks of the van⯑quiſhed, as the rigour of tyranny is aggra⯑vated by the abuſe of conqueſt. From the firſt invaſion of Judaea by the arms of the Aſ⯑ſyrians, to the ſubverſion of the Perſian mo⯑narchy by Alexander, there elapſed a period of above four hundred years, which included about twelve ages or generations of the human race. As long as the Jews aſſerted their in⯑dependence, they repeatedly ſuffered every ca⯑lamity which the rage and inſolence of a vic⯑torious enemy could inflict; the throne of David was overturned, the temple and city were re⯑duced to aſhes, and the whole land, a circum⯑ſtance perhaps unparalleled in hiſtory, remained three-ſcore and ten years without inhabitants, and without cultivation. (2 Chronicles, xxxvi. 21.) According to an inſtitution which has [23] long prevailed in Aſia, and particularly in the Turkiſh government, the moſt beautiful and ingenious youths were carefully educated in the palace, where ſuperior merit ſometimes introduced theſe fortunate ſlaves to the favour of the conqueror, and to the honours of the ſtate. (See the book and example of Daniel.) The reſt of the unhappy Jews experienced the hardſhips of captivity and exile in diſtant lands, and while individuals were oppreſſed, the na⯑tion ſeemed to be diſſolved or annihilated. The gracious edict of Cyrus was offered to all thoſe who worſhipped the God of Iſrael in the temple of Jeruſalem; but it was accepted by no more than forty-two thouſand perſons of either ſex and of every age, and of theſe about thirty thouſand derived their origin from the Tribes of Judah, of Benjamin, and of Levi. (See Ez⯑ra, i. Nehemiah, vii. and Prideaux's Connec⯑tions, vol. i. p. 107. fol. Edit. London, 1718.) The inconſiderable band of exiles, who returned to inhabit the land of their fathers, cannot be computed as the hundred and fiftieth part of the mighty people, that had been numbered by the impious raſhneſs of David. After a ſur⯑vey, which did not comprehend the Tribes of Levi and Benjamin, the Monarch was aſſured that he reigned over one million five hundred and ſeventy thouſand men that drew ſword (2 Chro⯑nicles, [24] xxi. 1—6), and the country of Judaea muſt have contained near ſeven millions of free inhabitants. The progreſs of reſtoration is always leſs rapid than that of deſtruction; Je⯑ruſalem, which had been ruined in a few months, was rebuilt by the ſlow and inter⯑rupted labours of a whole century; and the Jews, who gradually multiplied in their na⯑tive ſeats, enjoyed a ſervile and precarious ex⯑iſtence, which depended on the capricious will of their maſter. The books of Ezra and Ne⯑hemiah do not afford a very pleaſing view of their ſituation under the Perſian Empire; and the book of Eſther exhibits a moſt extraordi⯑nary inſtance of the degree of eſtimation in which they were held at the Court of Suſa. A Miniſter addreſſed his King in the following words, which may be conſidered as a Com⯑mentary on the deſpectiſſima pars ſervientium of the Roman hiſtorian; ‘And Haman ſaid to King Ahaſuerus, there is a certain people ſcattered abroad, and diſperſed among the people in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are diverſe from all people, neither keep they the King's laws; therefore it is not for the King's profit to ſuffer them. If it pleaſe the King let it be written that they may be deſtroyed; and I will pay ten thouſand talents of ſilver to the hands of [25] thoſe that have the charge of the buſineſs to bring it to the King's treaſuries. And the King took his ring from his hand, and gave it to Haman, the ſon of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews enemy. And the King ſaid unto Haman, The ſilver is given unto thee: the people alſo, to do with them as it ſeemeth good to thee.’ (Eſther, iii. 8—11.) This trifling favour was aſked by the Miniſter, and granted by the Monarch, with an eaſy in⯑difference, which expreſſed their contempt for the lives and fortunes of the Jews; the buſineſs paſſed without difficulty through the forms of office; and had Eſther been leſs lovely, or leſs beloved, a ſingle day would have conſummated the univerſal ſlaughter of a ſubmiſſive people, to whom no legal defence was allowed, and from whom no reſiſtance ſeems to have been dreaded. I am a ſtanger to Mr. Davis's poli⯑tical principles; but I ſhould think that the epithet of ſlaves, and of deſpiſed ſlaves, may, without injuſtice, be applied to a captive na⯑tion, over whoſe heads the ſword of tyranny was ſuſpended by ſo ſlender a thread.

The policy of the Macedonians was very different from that of the Perſians; and yet Mr. Davis, who reluctantly confeſſes that the Jews were oppreſſed by the former, does not underſtand how long they were favoured and [26] protected by the latter². In the ſhock of thoſe revolutions which divided the empire of Alex⯑ander, Judaea, like the other provinces, expe⯑rienced the tranſient ravages of an advancing or retreating enemy, who led away a multitude of captives. But in the age of Joſephus, the Jews ſtill enjoyed the privileges granted by the Kings of Aſia and Egypt, who had fixed nu⯑merous colonies of that nation in the new cities of Alexandria, Antioch, &c. and placed them in the ſame honourable condition ( [...]) as the Greeks and Macedonians them⯑ſelves. (Joſeph. Antiquat. l. xii. c. 1. 3. p. 585. 596. Vol. i. edit. Havercamp.) Had they been treated with leſs indulgence, their ſettlement in thoſe celebrated cities, the ſeats of commerce and learning, was enough to introduce them to the knowledge of the world, and to juſtify my abſurd propoſition, that they emerged from obſcurity under the ſucceſſors of Alexander.

Under the reign of thoſe princes who oc⯑cupy the interval between Alexander and Au⯑guſtus, the Jews aſſerted their civil and reli⯑gious rights againſt Antiochus Epiphanes, who had adopted new maxims of tyranny, and the age of the Machabees is perhaps the moſt glorious period of the Hebrew annals. Mr. Davis, who on this occaſion is bewildered by the ſub⯑tlety of Tacitus, does not comprehend why [27] the hiſtorian ſhould aſcribe the independence of the Jews to three negative cauſes, ‘Mace⯑donibus invalidis, Parthis nondum adultis, et Romani procul aberant.’ To the under⯑ſtanding of the critic, Tacitus might as well have obſerved that the Jews were not deſtroyed by a plague, a famine, or an earthquake; and Mr. Davis cannot ſee, for his own part, any reaſon why they might not have elected Kings of their own two or three hundred years be⯑fore³. Such indeed was not the reaſon of Ta⯑citus; he probably conſidered that every na⯑tion, depreſſed by the weight of a foreign power, naturally riſes towards the ſurface, as ſoon as the preſſure is removed; and he might think that, in a ſhort and rapid hiſtory of the independence of the Jews, it was ſuffi⯑cient for him to ſhew that the obſtacles did not exiſt, which, in an earlier or in a later period, would have checked their efforts. The curi⯑ous reader, who has leiſure to ſtudy the Jewiſh and Syrian hiſtory, will diſcover that the throne of the Aſmonaean Princes was con⯑firmed by the two great victories of the Parthians over Demetrius Nicator, and Antiochus Sidetes (See Joſeph. Antiquitat. Jud. l. xiii. c. 5, 6. 8, 9. Juſtin, xxxvi. 1. xxxviii. 10. with Uſher and Prideaux, before Chriſt 141 and 130); and the expreſſion of Tacitus, the more cloſely it is examined, will be the more rationally admired.

[28] My Quotations⁴ are the object of Mr. Da⯑vis's criticiſm⁵, as well as the Text of this ſhort, but obnoxious paſſage. He corrects the error of my memory, which had ſuggeſted ſervitutis inſtead of ſervientium; and ſo natural is the al⯑liance between truth and moderation, that on this occaſion he forgets his character, and can⯑didly acquits me of any malicious deſign to miſrepreſent the words of Tacitus. The other references, which are contained in the firſt and ſecond Notes of my Fifteenth Chapter, are connected with each other, and can only be miſtaken after they have been forcibly ſepa⯑rated. The ſilence of Herodotus is a fair evi⯑dence of the obſcurity of the Jews, who had eſcaped the eyes of ſo curious a traveller. The Jews are firſt mentioned by Juſtin, when he relates the ſiege of Jeruſalem by Antiochus Si⯑detes; and the conqueſt of Judaea, by the arms of Pompey, engaged Diodorus and Dion to introduce that ſingular nation to the ac⯑quaintance of their readers. Theſe epochs, which are within ſeventy years of each other, mark the age in which the Jewiſh people, emerging from their obſcurity, began to act a part in the ſociety of nations, and to excite the curioſity of the Greek and Roman hiſto⯑rians. For that purpoſe only, I had appealed to the authority of Diodorus Siculus, of Juſtin, or rather of Trogus Pompeius, and of Dion [29] Caſſius. If I had deſigned to inveſtigate the Jewiſh Antiquities, reaſon, as well as faith, muſt have directed my inquiries to the Sacred Books, which, even as human productions, would deſerve to be ſtudied as one of the moſt curious and original monuments of the Eaſt.

V.

I ſhall begin this article by the confeſſion of an error which candour might perhaps excuſe, but which my Adverſary magnifies by a pathe⯑tic interrogation. ‘When he tells us, that he has carefully examined all the original ma⯑terials, are we to believe him? or is it his deſign to try how far the credulity and eaſy diſpoſition of the age will ſuffer him to pro⯑ceed unſuſpected and undiſcovered⁶?’ Quo⯑uſque tandem abuteris Catilina patientiâ noſtrâ?

In ſpeaking of the danger of idolatry, I had quoted the pictoreſque expreſſion of Tertullian, ‘Recogita ſylvam et quantae latitant ſpinae,’ and finding it marked c. 10 in my Notes, I haſtily, though naturally, added de Idololatria, inſtead of de Corona Militis, and referred to one Treatiſe of Tertullian inſtead of another⁷. And now let me aſk in my turn, whether Mr. Davis had any real knowledge of the paſſage which I had miſplaced, or whether he made an ungenerous uſe of his advantage, to inſinuate [30] that I had invented or perverted the words of Tertullian? Ignorance is leſs criminal than malice, and I ſhall be ſatisfied if he will plead guilty to the milder charge.

The ſame obſervation may be extended to a paſſage of Le Clerc, which aſſerts, in the cleareſt terms, the ignorance of the more an⯑cient Jews with regard to a future ſtate. Le Clerc lay open before me, but while my eye moved from the book to the paper, I tran⯑ſcribed the reference c. 1. ſect. 8. inſtead of ſect. 1. c. 8. from the natural, but erroneous perſuaſion, that Chapter expreſſed the larger, and Section the ſmaller diviſion⁸: and this dif⯑ference, of ſuch trifling moment and ſo eaſily rectified, holds a diſtinguiſhed place in the liſt of Miſrepreſentations which adorn Mr. Davis's table of Contents⁹. But to return to Tertul⯑lian.

The infernal picture, which I had produced¹ from that vehement writer, which excited the horror of every humane reader, and which even Mr. Davis will not explicitly defend, has furniſhed him with a few critical cavils². Happy ſhould I think myſelf, if the materials of my Hiſtory could be always expoſed to the Examination of the Public; and I ſhall con⯑tent [31] myſelf with appealing to the impartial Reader, whether my Verſion of this Paſſage is not as fair and as faithful as the more literal tranſlation which Mr. Davis has exhibited in an oppoſite column. I ſhall only juſtify two expreſſions which have provoked his indigna⯑tion. 1. I had obſerved that the zealous Afri⯑can purſues the infernal deſcription in a long variety of affected and unfeeling witticiſms; the inſtances of Gods, of Kings, of Magi⯑ſtrates, of Philoſophers, of Poets, of Trage⯑dians introduced into my Tranſlation. Thoſe which I had omitted relate to the Dancers, the Charioteers, and the Wreſtlers; and it is al⯑moſt impoſſible to expreſs thoſe conceits which are connected with the language and manners of the Romans. But the reader will be ſuffi⯑ciently ſhocked, when he is informed that Ter⯑tullian alludes to the improvement which the agility of the Dancers, the red livery of the Charioteers, and the attitudes of the Wreſtlers, would derive from the effects of fire. ‘Tunc hiſtrioanes cognoſcendi ſolutiores multo per ignem; tunc ſpectandus Auriga in flammea rota totus ruber. Tunc Xyſtici contem⯑plandi, non in Gymnaſiis, ſed in igne jacu⯑lati.’ 2. I cannot refuſe to anſwer Mr. Davis's very particular queſtion, Why I appeal to Tertullian for the condemnation of the wiſeſt and moſt virtuous of the Pagans? Becauſe [32] I am inclined to beſtow that epithet on Trajan and the Antonines, Homer and Euripides, Plato and Ariſtotle, who are all manifeſtly in⯑cluded within the fiery deſcription which I had produced.

I am accuſed of miſquoting Tertullian ad Scapulam³, as an evidence that Martyrdoms were lately introduced into Africa⁴. Beſides Tertullian, I had quoted from Ruinart (Acta Sincera, p. 84.) the Acts of the Scyllitan Mar⯑tyrs; and a very moderate knowledge of Ec⯑cleſiaſtical Hiſtory would have informed Mr. Davis, that the two authorities thus connected eſtabliſh the propoſition aſſerted in my Text. Tertullian, in the above-mentioned Chapter, ſpeaks of one of the Proconſuls of Africa, Vi⯑gellius Saturninus, ‘qui primus hic gladium in nos egit;’ the Acta Sincera repreſent the ſame Magiſtrate as the Judge of the Scyllitan Martyrs, and Ruinart, with the conſent of the beſt Critics, aſcribes their ſufferings to the perſecution of Severus. Was it my fault if Mr. Davis was incapable of ſupplying the in⯑termediate ideas?

Is it likewiſe neceſſary that I ſhould juſtify the frequent uſe which I have made of Tertul⯑lian? His copious writings diſplay a lively and intereſting picture of the primitive Church, [33] and the ſcantineſs of original materials ſcarcely left me the liberty of choice. Yet as I was ſenſible, that the Montaniſm of Tertullian is the convenient ſcreen, which our orthodox Divines have placed before his errors, I have, with peculiar caution, confined myſelf to thoſe works which were compoſed in the more early and ſounder part of his life.

As a collateral juſtification of my frequent appeals to this African Preſbyter, I had intro⯑duced, in the third edition of my Hiſtory, two paſſages of Jerom and Prudentius, which prove that Tertullian was the maſter of Cyprian, and that Cyprian was the maſter of the Latin Church⁵. Mr. Davis aſſures me, however, that I ſhould have done better not to have ‘added this note⁶, as I have only accumu⯑lated my inaccuracies.’ One inaccuracy he had indeed detected, an error of the preſs, Hie⯑ronym. de Viris illuſtribus, c. 53 for 63; but this advantage is dearly purchaſed by Mr. Da⯑vis. [...], which he produces as the original words of Cyprian, has a braver and more learned ſound, than Da magiſtrum; but the quoting in Greek a ſentence which was pro⯑nounced, and is recorded in Latin, ſeems to bear the mark of the moſt ridiculous pedantry; [34] unleſs Mr. Davis, conſulting for the firſt time the Works of Jerom, miſtook the Verſion of Sophronius, which is printed in the oppoſite column, for the Text of his original Author. My reference to Prudentius, Hymn. xiii. 100. cannot ſo eaſily be juſtified, as I preſumptu⯑ouſly believed that my critics would continue to read till they came to a full ſtop. I ſhall now place before them, not the firſt verſe only, but the entire period, which they will find full, expreſs, and ſatisfactory. The Poet ſays of St. Cyprian, whom he places in Heaven,

VI.

On the ſubject of the imminent dangers which the Apocalypſe has ſo narrowly eſcaped⁷, Mr. Davis accuſes me of miſrepreſenting the ſentiments of Sulpicius Severus and Fra-Paolo⁸, with this difference, however, that I was incapable of reading or underſtanding the text of the Latin author; but that I wilfully perverted the ſenſe of the Italian hiſtorian. [35] Theſe imputations I ſhall eaſily wipe away, by ſhewing that, in the firſt inſtance, I am proba⯑bly in the right, and that in the ſecond, he is certainly in the wrong.

1. The conciſe and elegant Sulpicius, who has been juſtly ſtyled the Chriſtian Salluſt, after mentioning the exile and Revelations of St. John in the Iſle of Patmos, obſerves (and ſurely the obſervation is in the language of complaint), ‘Librum ſacrae Apocalypſis, qui quidem a pleriſque aut ſtulte aut impie non recipitur, conſcriptum edidit.’ I am found guilty of ſuppoſing plerique to ſignify the greater number; whereas Mr. Davis, with Stephens's Dictionary in his hand, is able to prove that plerique has not always that extenſive meaning, and that a claſſic of good authority has uſed the word in a much more limited and qualified ſenſe. Let the Examiner therefore try to ap⯑ply his exception to this particular caſe. For my part, I ſtand under the protection of the general uſage of the Latin language, and with a ſtrong preſumption in favour of the juſtice of my cauſe, or at leaſt of the innocence and fair⯑neſs of my intentions; ſince I have tranſlated a familiar word according to its acknowledged and ordinary acceptation.

But, ‘if I had looked into the paſſage, and found that Sulpicius Severus there expreſsly [36] tells us, that the Apocalypſe was the work of St. John, I could not have committed ſo unfortunate a blunder, as to cite this Father as ſaying That the greater number of Chriſ⯑tians denied its Canonical authority⁹.’ Unfortunate indeed would have been my blunder, had I aſſerted that the ſame Chriſ⯑tians who denied its Canonical authority, ad⯑mitted it to be the work of an Apoſtle. Such indeed was the opinion of Severus himſelf, and his opinion has obtained the ſanction of the Church; but the Chriſtians whom he taxes with folly or impiety for rejecting this ſacred book, muſt have ſupported their error by at⯑tributing the Apocalypſe to ſome uninſpired writer; to John the Preſbyter, or to Cerinthus the Heretic.

If the rules of grammar and of logic autho⯑riſe, or at leaſt allow me to tranſlate plerique by the greater number, the Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory of the fourth century illuſtrates and juſtifies this obvious interpretation. From a fair compari⯑ſon of the populouſneſs and learning of the Greek and Latin Churches, may I not con⯑clude that the former contained the greater number of Chriſtians qualified to paſs ſentence on a myſterious propheſy compoſed in the Greek language? May I not affirm, on the [37] authority of St. Jerom, that the Apocalypſe was generally rejected by the Greek Churches? ‘Quod ſi eam (the Epiſtle to the Hebrews) Latinorum conſuetudo non recipit inter Scripturas Canonicas; nec Graecorum Ec⯑cleſiae Apocalypſim Johannis eadem libertate ſuſcipiunt. Et tamen nos utramque ſuſcipi⯑mus, nequaquam hujus temporis conſuetu⯑dinem, ſed veterum auctoritatem ſequentes.’ Epiſtol. ad Dardanum, tom. iii. p. 68.

It is not my deſign to enter my farther into the controverted hiſtory of that famous book; but I am called upon¹ to defend my Remark that the Apocalypſe was tacitly excluded from the ſacred canon by the council of Laodicea (Ca⯑non LX.) To defend my Remark, I need only ſtate the fact in a ſimple, but more parti⯑cular manner. The aſſembled Biſhops of Aſia, after enumerating all the books of the Old and New Teſtament which ſhould be read in churches, omit the Apocalypſe, and the Apo⯑calypſe alone; at a time when it was rejected or queſtioned by many pious and learned Chriſ⯑tians, who might deduce a very plauſible ar⯑gument from the ſilence of the Synod.

2. When the Council of Trent reſolved to pronounce ſentence on the Canon of Scripture, [38] the opinion which prevailed, after ſome debate, was to declare the Latin Vulgate authentic and almoſt infallible; and this ſentence, which was guarded by formidable Anathemas, ſecured all the books of the Old and New Teſtament which compoſed that ancient verſion, ‘che ſi dichiaraſſero tutti in tutte le parte come ſi trovano nella Biblia Latina, eſſer di Divina è ugual autorita.’ (Iſtoria del Concilio Tridentino, l. ii. p. 147. Helmſtadt (Vicen⯑za) 1761.) When the merit of that verſion was diſcuſſed, the majority of the Theologians urged, with confidence and ſucceſs, that it was abſolutely neceſſary to receive the Vulgate as authentic and inſpired, unleſs they wiſhed to abandon the victory to the Lutherans, and the honours of the Church of the Grammarians. ‘In contrario della maggior parte dè Teo⯑logi era detto . . . . che-queſt nuovi Gram⯑matici confonderanno ogni coſa, e ſarà far⯑gii giudici e arbitri della fede; e in luogo dè Teologi e Canoniſti, converrà tener il primo conto nell' aſſumere a Veſcovati e Cardinalati dè pedanti.’ (Iſtoria del Con⯑cilio Tridentino, I. ii. p. 149.) The ſagacious Hiſtorian, who had ſtudied the Council, and the judicious Le Courayer, who had ſtudied his Author (Hiſtorie du Concile de Trente, tom. i. p. 245. Londres 1736) conſider this ridiculous [39] reaſon as the moſt powerful argument which influenced the debates of the Council: But Mr. Davis, jealous of the honour of a Synod which placed tradition on a level with the Bi⯑ble, affirms that Fra-Paolo has given another more ſubſtantial reaſon on which theſe Popiſh Biſhops built their determination, That after dividing the books under their conſideration into three claſſes; of thoſe which had been al⯑ways held for divine; of thoſe whoſe authenti⯑city had formerly been doubted, but which by uſe and cuſtom had acquired canonical autho⯑rity; and of thoſe which had never been pro⯑perly certified; the Apocalypſe was judiciouſly placed by the Fathers of the Council in the ſecond of theſe claſſes.

The Italian paſſage which, for that purpoſe, Mr. Davis had alleged at the bottom of his page, is indeed taken from the text of Fra-Paolo: but the reader who will give himſelf the trouble, or rather the pleaſure, of peruſing that incompa⯑rable hiſtorian, will diſcover that Mr. Davis has only miſtaken a motion of the oppoſition for a meaſure of the adminiſtration. He will find that this critical diviſion, which is ſo erro⯑neouſly aſcribed to the public reaſon of the Council, was no more than the ineffectual pro⯑poſal of a temperate minority, which was ſoon over-ruled by a majority of artful Stateſmen, bigotted Monks, and dependent Biſhops.

[40] ‘We have here an evident proof that Mr. Gibbon is equally expert in miſrepreſenting a modern as an ancient writer, or that he wilfully conceals the moſt material reaſon, with a deſign, no doubt, to inſtil into his Reader a notion, that the authenticity of the Apocalypſe is built on the ſlighteſt foun⯑dation².’

VII.

I had cautiouſly obſerved (for I was appriſed of the obſcurity of the ſubject) that the Epiſtle of Clemens does not lead us to diſcover any traces of Epiſcopacy either at Corinth or Rome³. In this obſervation I particularly alluded to the republican form of ſalutation, ‘The Church of God inhabiting Rome, to the Church of God inhabiting Corinth;’ without the leaſt mention of a Biſhop or Preſident in either of thoſe eccleſiaſtical aſſemblies.

Yet the piercing eye of Mr. Davis⁴ can diſ⯑cover not only traces, but evident proofs of Epiſcopacy, in this Epiſtle of Clemens; and he actually quotes two paſſages, in which he diſtinguiſhes by capital letters the word BI⯑SHOPS, whoſe inſtitution Clemens refers to the Apoſtles themſelves. But can Mr. Davis hope to gain credit by ſuch engregious triffing? While we are ſearching for the origin of Bi⯑ſhops, [41] not merely as an eccleſiaſtical title, but as the peculiar name of an order diſtinct from that of Preſbyters, he idly produces a paſſage, which, by declaring that the Apoſtles eſta⯑bliſhed in every place Biſhops and Deacons, evi⯑dently confounds the Preſbyters with one or other of thoſe two ranks. I have neither in⯑clination nor intereſt to engage in a contro⯑verſy which I had conſidered only in an hiſtorical light; but I have already ſaid enough to ſhew, that there are more traces of a diſingenuous mind in Mr. Davis, than of an Epiſcopal Or⯑der in the Epiſtle of Clemens.

VIII.

Perhaps, on ſome future occaſion, I may examine the hiſtorical character of Euſebius; perhaps I may enquire, how far it appears from his words and actions that the learned Biſhop of Caeſarea was averſe to the uſe of fraud, when it was employed in the ſervice of Religion. At preſent I am only concerned to defend my own truth and honour from the re⯑proach of miſrepreſenting the ſenſe of the Ec⯑cleſiaſtical Hiſtorian. Some of the charges of Mr. Davis on this head are ſo ſtrong, ſo pointed, ſo vehemently urged, that he ſeems to have ſtaked, on the event of the trial, the merits of our reſpective characters. If his aſſertions are true, I deſerve the contempt of learned, and [42] the abhorrence of good, men. If they are falſe, * * * * * * *

1. I had remarked, without any malicious in⯑tention, that one of the ſeventeen Chriſtians who ſuffered at Alexandria was likewiſe accuſed of robbery⁵. Mr. Davis⁶ ſeems enraged be⯑cauſe I did not add that he was falſely accuſed, takes ſome unneceſſary pains to convince me that the Greek word [...] ſignifies falſo accuſatus, and ‘can hardly think that any one who had looked into the original, would dare thus abſolutely to contradict the plain teſtimony of the author he pretends to fol⯑low.’ A ſimple narrative of this fact, in the relation of which Mr. Davis has really ſup⯑preſſed ſeveral material circumſtances, will af⯑ford the cleareſt juſtification.

Euſebius had preſerved an original letter from Dionyſius Biſhop of Alexandria to Fabius Biſhop of Antioch, in which the former re⯑lates the circumſtances of the perſecution which had lately afflicted the capital of Egypt. He allows a rank among the martyrs to one Ne⯑meſion, an Egyptian, who was falſely or ma⯑liciouſly accuſed as a companion of robbers. Before the Centurion he juſtified himſelf from [43] this calumny, which did not relate to him: but being charged as a Chriſtian, he was brought in chains before the Governor. That unjuſt magiſtrate, after inflicting on Nemeſion a double meaſure of ſtripes and tortures, gave or⯑ders that he ſhould be burnt with the robbers. (Dionyſ. apud Euſeb. l. vi. c. 41.)

It is evident that Dionyſius repreſents the religious ſufferer as innocent of the criminal accuſation which had been falſely brought againſt him. It is not leſs evident, that what⯑ever might be the opinion of the Centurion, the ſupreme magiſtrate conſidered Nemeſion as guilty, and that he affected to ſhew, by the meaſure of his tortures, and by the compa⯑nions of his execution, that he puniſhed him, not only as a Chriſtian, but as a robber. The evidence againſt Nemeſion, and that which might be produced in his favour, are equally loſt; and the queſtion (which fortu⯑nately is of little moment) of his guilt or in⯑nocence reſts ſolely on the oppoſite judgments of his eccleſiaſtical and civil ſuperiors. I could eaſily perceive that both the Biſhop and the Governor were actuated by different paſſions and prejudices towards the unhappy ſufferer; but it was impoſſible for me to decide which of the two was the moſt likely to indulge his pre⯑judices and paſſions at the expence of truth. In this doubtful ſituation, I conceived that I had acted with the moſt unexceptionable [44] caution, when I contented myſelf with ob⯑ſerving that Nemeſion was accuſed; a circum⯑ſtance of a public and authentic nature, in which both parties were agreed.

Mr. Davis will no longer aſk, ‘what poſ⯑ſible evaſion then can Mr. Gibbon have re⯑courſe to, to convince the world that I have falſely accuſed him of a groſs miſrepreſenta⯑tion of Euſebius?’

2. Mr. Davis⁷ charges me with falſifying (falſifying is a very ſerious word) the teſtimony of Euſebius; becauſe it ſuited my purpoſe to magnify the humanity and even kindneſs of Maxentius towards the afflicted Chriſtians⁸. To ſupport this charge, he produces ſome part of a chapter of Euſebius, the Engliſh in his text, the Greek in his notes, and makes the Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtorian expreſs himſelf in the following terms: ‘Although Maxentius at firſt favoured the Chriſtians with a view of popularity, yet afterwards, being addicted to magic, and every other impiety, HE ex⯑erted himſelf in perſecuting the Chriſtians, in a more ſevere and deſtructive manner than his predeceſſors had done before him.’

If it were in my power to place the volume and chapter of Euſebius (Hiſt. Eccleſ. l. viii. c. 14.) before the eyes of every reader, I ſhould [45] be ſatisfied and ſilent. I ſhould not be under the neceſſity of proteſting, that in the paſſage quoted, or rather abridged, by my adverſary, the ſecond member of the period, which alone contradicts my account of Maxentius, has not the moſt diſtant reference to that odious tyrant. After diſtinguiſhing the mild conduct which he affected towards the Chriſtians, Euſebius proceeds to animadvert with becoming ſerverity on the general vices of his reign; the rapes, the murders, the oppreſſion, the promiſcuous maſſacres, which I had faithfully related in their proper place, and which the Chriſtians, not in their religious, but in their civil capa⯑city, muſt occaſionally have ſhared with the reſt of his unhappy ſubjects. The Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtorian then makes a tranſition to another tyrant, the cruel Maximin, who carried away from his friend and ally Maxentius the prize of ſuperior wickedneſs; for HE was addicted to magic arts, and was a cruel perſecutor of the Chriſtians. The evidence of words and facts, the plain meaning of Euſebius, the concurring teſtimony of Caecilius or Lactantius, and the ſuperfluous authority of Verſions and Commen⯑tators, eſtabliſh beyond the reach of doubt or cavil, that Maximin, and not Maxentius, is ſtigmatized as a perſecutor, and that Mr. Davis alone has deſerved the reproach of falſifying the teſtimony of Euſebius.

[46] Let him examine the chapter on which he founds his accuſation. If in that moment his feelings are not of the moſt painful and humi⯑liating kind, he muſt indeed be an object of pity.

3. A groſs blunder is imputed to me by this polite antagoniſt⁹, for quoting under the name of Jerom, the Chronicle which I ought to have deſcribed as the work and property of Euſe⯑bius¹; and Mr. Davis kindly points out the occaſion of my blunder, That it was the conſe⯑quence of my looking no farther than Dodwell for this remark, and of not rightly under⯑ſtanding his reference. Perhaps the Hiſtorian of the Roman Empire may be credited, when he affirms that he frequently conſulted a Latin Chronicle of the affairs of that Empire; and he may the ſooner be credited, if he ſhews that he knows ſomething more of this Chronicle beſides the name and the title-page.

Mr. Davis, who talks ſo familiarly of the Chronicle of Euſebius, will be ſurpriſed to hear that the Greek original no longer exiſts. Some chronological fragments, which had ſuc⯑ceſſively paſſed through the hands of Africanus and Euſebius, are ſtill extant, though in a very corrupt and mutilated ſtate, in the compila⯑tions of Syncellus and Cedrenus. They have [47] been collected, and diſpoſed by the labour and ingenuity of Joſeph Scaliger; but that proud Critic, always ready to applaud his own ſuc⯑ceſs, did not flatter himſelf, that he had re⯑ſtored the hundredth part of the genuine Chro⯑nicle of Euſebius. ‘Ex eo (Syncello) omnia Euſebiana excerpſimus quae quidem depre⯑hendere potuimus; quae, quanquam ne cen⯑teſima quidem pars eorum eſſe videtur quae ab Euſebio relicta ſunt, aliquod tamen juſtum volumen explere poſſunt.’ (Joſ. Scaliger Animadverſiones in Graeca Euſebii in Theſauro Temporum, p. 401. Amſtelod. 1658. While the Chronicle of Euſebius was perfect and entire, the ſecond book was tranſlated into Latin by Jerom, with the freedom, or rather licence, which that voluminous Author, as well as his friend or enemy Rufinus, always aſſumed. ‘Plurima in vertendo mutat, infulcit, praeterit,’ ſays Scaliger himſelf, in the Prolegomena, p. 22. In the perſecution of Aurelian, which has ſo much offended Mr. Davis, we are able to diſ⯑tinguiſh the work of Euſebius from that of Jerom, by comparing the expreſſions of the Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory with thoſe of the Chro⯑nicle. The former affirms, that, towards the end of his reign, Aurelian was moved by ſome councils to excite a perſecution gainſt the Chriſtians; that his deſign occa⯑ſioned [48] a great and general rumour; but that when the letters were prepared, and as it were ſigned, Divine Juſtice diſmiſſed him from the world. [...] Euſeb. Hiſt. Eccleſ. l. vii. c. 30. Where⯑as the Chronicle relates, that Aurelian was killed after he had excited or moved a perſe⯑cution againſt the Chriſtians, ‘cum adverſum nos perſecutionem moviſſet.’

From this manifeſt difference I aſſume a right to aſſert; firſt, the expreſſion of the Chronicle of Jerom, which is always proper, became in this inſtance neceſſary; and ſecondly, that the lan⯑guage of the Fathers is ſo ambiguous and in⯑correct, that we are at a loſs how to determine how far Aurelian had carried his intention be⯑fore he was aſſaſſinated. I have neither per⯑verted the fact, nor have I been guilty of a groſs blunder.

IX.

‘The perſons accuſed of Chriſtianity had a convenient time allowed them to ſettle their domeſtic concerns, and to prepare their anſwer¹.’ This obſervation had been ſug⯑geſted, [49] partly by a general expreſſion of Cyprian (de Lapſis, p. 88. Edit. Fell. Amſtelod. 1700.) and more eſpecially by the ſecond Apology of Juſtin Martyr, who gives a particular and cu⯑rious example of this legal delay.

The expreſſions of Cyprian, ‘dies negan⯑tibus praeſtitutus, &c.,’ which Mr. Davis moſt prudently ſuppreſſes, are illuſtrated by Moſheim in the following words: ‘Primum qui delati erant aut ſuſpecti, illis certum dierum ſpa⯑tium judex definiebat, quo decurrente, ſe⯑cum deliberare poterant, utrum profiteri Chriſtum an negare mallent; explorandae fidei praefiniebantur dies, per hoc tempus liberi manebant in domibus ſuis; nec impediebat aliquis quod ex conſequentibus apparet, ne fugâ ſibi conſulerent. Satis hoc erat huma⯑num.’ (De Rebus Chriſtianis ante Conſtan⯑tinum, p. 480.) The practice of Egypt was ſometimes more expeditious and ſevere; but this humane indulgence was ſtill allowed in Africa during the perſecution of Decius.

But my appeal to Juſtin Martyr is encoun⯑tered by Mr. Davis with the following declara⯑tion²: ‘The reader will obſerve, that Mr. Gibbon does not make any reference to any ſection or diviſion of this part of Juſtin's work; [50] with what view we may ſhrewdly ſuſpect, when I tell him, that after an accurate peruſal of the whole ſecond Apology, I can boldly affirm, that the following inſtance is the only one that bears the moſt diſtant ſimilitude to what Mr. Gibbon relates as above on the authority of Juſtin. What I find in Juſtin is as follows: "A woman being converted to Chriſtianity, is afraid to aſſociate with her huſband, becauſe he is an abandoned repro⯑bate, leſt ſhe ſhould partake of his ſins. Her huſband, not being able to accuſe her, vents his rage in this manner on one Ptolemaeus, a teacher of Chriſtianity, and who had con⯑verted her, &c.’ Mr. Davis then proceeds to relate the ſeverities inflicted on Ptolemaeus, who made a frank and inſtant profeſſion of his faith: and he ſternly exclaims, that if I take every opportunity of paſſing encomiums on the humanity of Roman magiſtrates, it is incum⯑bent on me to produce better evidence than this.

His demand may be eaſily ſatisfied, and I need only for that purpoſe tranſcribe and tranſlate the words of Juſtin, which immediately pre⯑cede the Greek quotation alleged at the bottom of my adverſary's page. I am poſſeſſed of two editions of Juſtin Martyr, that of Cambridge, 1768, in 8vo, by Dr. Aſhton, who only pub⯑liſhed [51] the two Apologies; and that of all his works, publiſhed in fol. Paris, 1742, by the Benedictines of the Congregation of St. Maar: the following curious paſſage may be found, p. 164, of the former, and p. 89 of the latter Edition. [...] ‘He brought an accuſation againſt her, ſaying, that ſhe was a Chriſtian. But ſhe preſented a petition to the Emperor, praying that ſhe might firſt be allowed to ſettle her domeſtic concerns; and promiſing, that after ſhe had ſettled them, ſhe would then put in her anſwer to the accuſation. This you granted.’

I diſdain to add a ſingle reflection: nor ſhall I qualify the conduct of my adverſary with any of thoſe harſh epithets, which might be inter⯑preted as the expreſſions of reſentment, though I ſhould be conſtrained to uſe them as the only words in the Engliſh language, which could accurately repreſent my cool and unprejudiced ſentiments.

X.

In ſtating the toleration of Chriſtianity du⯑ring the greateſt part of the reign of Diocle⯑tian, I had obſerved³, that the principal eunuchs of the palace, whoſe names and offices were particularly ſpecified, enjoyed, with their wives and children, the free exerciſe of the Chriſtian religion. Mr. Davis twice affirms⁴, in the moſt deliberate manner, that this pretended fact, which is aſſerted on the ſole authority, is contradicted by the poſitive evidence, of Lac⯑tantius. In both theſe effirmations Mr. Davis is inexcuſably miſtaken.

1. When the ſtorms of perſecution aroſe, the Prieſts, who were offended by the ſign of the Croſs, obtained leave of the Emperor, that the profane, the Chriſtians, who accompanied him to the Temple, ſhould be compelled to offer ſacrifice; and this incident is mentioned by the Rhetorician, to whom I ſhall not at preſent refuſe the name of Lactantius. The act of idolatry, which at the expiration of eighteen years was required of the officers of Dioletian, is a manifeſt proof that their religious freedom had hitherto been inviolate, except in the ſingle inſtance of waiting on their maſter to the [53] Temple; a ſervice leſs criminal, than the pro⯑fane compliance for which the Miniſter of the King of Syria ſolicited the permiſſion of the Prophet of Iſrael.

2. The reference which I made to Lac⯑tantius expreſsly pointed out this exception to their freedom. But the proof of the toleration which they enjoyed, was built on a different teſtimony, which my diſingenuous adverſary has concealed; an ancient and curious inſtruction, compoſed by Biſhop Theonas, for the uſe of Lucian and the other Chriſtian eunuchs of the palace of Diocletian. This authentic piece was publiſhed in the Spicilegium of Dom Luc d'Acheri; as I had not the opportunity of con⯑ſulting the original, I was contented with quot⯑ing it on the faith of Tillemont, and the refer⯑ence to it immediately precedes (ch. xvi. note 133.) the citation of Lactantius (note 134).

Mr. Davis may now anſwer his own queſtion, ‘What apology can be made for thus aſſert⯑ing, on the ſole authority of Lactantius, facts which Lactantius ſo expreſsly denies?’

XI.

‘I have already given a curious inſtance of our Author's aſſerting, on the authority of Dion Caſſius, a fact not mentioned by that Hiſtorian. I ſhall now produce a very ſin⯑gular proof of his endeavouring to conceal [54] from us a paſſage really contained in him⁴.’ Nothing but the angry vehemence with which theſe charges are urged, could engage me to take the leaſt notice of them. In themſelves they are doubly contemptible: they are trifling, and they are falſe.

1. Mr. Davis⁵ had imputed to me as a crime, that I had mentioned, on the ſole teſti⯑mony of Dion (l. lxviii. p. 1145.), the ſpirit of rebellion which inflamed the Jews, from the reign of Nero to that of Antoninus Pius⁶, whilſt the paſſage of that Hiſtorian is confined to an inſurrection in Cyprus and Cyrene, which broke out within that period. The Reader who will caſt his eye on the Note (ch. xvi. note 1.) which is ſupported by that quotation from Dion, will diſcover that it related only to this particular fact. The ge⯑neral poſition, which is indeed too notorious to require any proof, I had carefully juſtified in the courſe of the ſame paragraph; partly by another reference to Dion Caſſius, partly by an alluſion to the well-known Hiſtory of Joſe⯑phus, and partly by ſeveral quotations from the learned and judicious Baſnage, who has ex⯑plained, in the moſt ſatisfactory manner, the principles and conduct of the rebellious Jews.

[55] 2. The paſſage of Dion, which I am accuſed of endeavouring to conceal, might perhaps have remained inviſible, even to the piercing eye of Mr. Davis, if I had not carefully re⯑ported it in its proper place: and it was in my power to report it, without being guilty of any inconſiderate contradiction. I had obſerved, that, in the large hiſtory of Dion Caſſius, Xi⯑philin had not been able to diſcover the name of Chriſtians: yet I afterwards quote a paſſage in which Marcia, the favourite Concubine of Commodus, is celebrated as the Patroneſs of the Chriſtians. Mr. Davis has tranſcribed my quotation, but he has concealed the important words which I now diſtinguiſh by Italics (ch. xvi. note 106. Dion Caſſius, or rather his ab⯑breviator Xiphilin, l. lxxii. p. 1206.) The re⯑ference is fairly made and cautiouſly qualified; I am already ſecure from the imputations of fraud or inconſiſtency; and the opinion which attributes the laſt-mentioned paſſage to the Ab⯑breviator, rather than to the original Hiſtorian, may be ſupported by the moſt unexception⯑able authorities. I ſhall protect myſelf by theſe of Reimar (in his Edition of Dion Caſſius, tom. ii. p. 1207. note 34.), and of Dr. Lard⯑ner; and ſhall only tranſcribe the words of the⁷ [56] latter, in his Collection of Jewiſh and Heathen teſtimonies, vol. iii. p. 57.

‘This paragraph I rather think to be Xi⯑philin's than Dion's. The ſtyle at leaſt is Xiphilin's. In the other paſſages before quoted, Dion ſpeaks of Impiety, or Atheiſm, or Judaiſm; but never uſeth the word Chriſ⯑tians. Another thing that may make us doubt whether this obſervation be entirely Dion's, is the phraſe, "it is related ( [...])." For at the beginning of the reign of Commodus, he ſays, "Theſe things, and what follows, I write not from the report of others, but from my own knowledge and obſervation." However, the ſenſe may be Dion; but I wiſh we had alſo his ſtyle with⯑out any adulteration.’ For my own part, I muſt, in my private opinion, aſcribe even the ſenſe of this paſſage to Xiphilin. The Monk might eagerly collect and inſert an anec⯑dote which related to the domeſtic hiſtory of the church; but the religion of a courtezan muſt have appeared an object of very little moment in the eyes of a Roman Counſul, who, at leaſt in every other part of his hiſtory, diſdained or neglected to mention the name of the Chriſ⯑tians.

‘What ſhall we ſay now? Do we not diſ⯑cover the name of Chriſtians in the Hiſtory [57] of Dion? With what aſſurance then can Mr. Gibbon, after aſſerting a fact manifeſtly untrue, lay claim to the merits of diligence and accuracy, the indiſpenſable duty of an Hiſtorian. Or can he expect us to credit his aſſertion, that he has carefully examined all the original materials⁸?’

Mr. Gibbon may ſtill maintain the character of an Hiſtorian; but it is difficult to conceive how Mr. Davis will ſupport his pretenſions, if he aſpires to that of a Gentleman.

I almoſt heſitate whether I ſhould take any notice of another ridiculous charge which Mr. Davis includes in the article of Dion Caſſius. My adverſary owns, that I have occaſionally produced the ſeveral paſſages of the Auguſtan Hiſtory which relate to the Chriſtians, but he fiercely contends that they amount to more than ſix lines ⁹. I really have not meaſured them: nor did I mean that looſe expreſſion as a preciſe and definite number. If, on a nicer ſurvey, thoſe ſhort hints, when they are brought together, ſhould be found to exceed ſix of the long lines of my folio edition, I am con⯑tent that my critical Antagoniſt ſhould ſubſti⯑tute eight, or ten, or twelve, lines: nor ſhall I think either my learning or my veracity much intereſted in this important alteration.

XII.

After a ſhort deſcription of the unworthy conduct of thoſe Apoſtates who, in a time of perſecution, deſerted the Faith of Chriſt, I produced the evidence of a Pagan Proconſul¹, and of two Chriſtian Biſhops, Pliny, Dionyſius of Alexandria, and Cyprian. And here the unforgiving Critic remarks, ‘That Pliny has not particularized that difference of conduct (in the different Apoſtates) which Mr. Gib⯑bon here deſcribes: yet his name ſtands at the head of thoſe Authors whom he has cited on the occaſion. It is allowed indeed that this diſtinction is made by the other Authors; but as Pliny, the firſt referred to by Mr. Gibbon, gives him no cauſe or rea⯑ſon to uſe them,’ (I cannot help Mr. Davis's bad Engliſh) ‘it is certainly very repre⯑henſible in our Author, thus to confound their teſtimony, and to make a needleſs and improper reference².’

A criticiſm of this ſort can only tend to ex⯑poſe Mr. Davis's total ignorance of hiſtorical compoſition. The Writer who aſpires to the name of Hiſtorian, is obliged to conſult a va⯑riety of original teſtimonies, each of which, [59] taken ſeparately, is perhaps imperfect and par⯑tial. By a judicious re-union and arrangement of theſe diſperſed materials, he endeavours to form a conſiſtent and intereſting narrative. Nothing ought to be inſerted which is not proved by ſome one of the witneſſes; but their evidence muſt be ſo intimately blended to⯑gether, that as it is unreaſonable to expect that each of them ſhould vouch for the whole, ſo it would be impoſſible to define the boundaries of their reſpective property. Neither Pliny, nor Dionyſius, nor Cyprian, mention all the circumſtances and diſtinctions of the conduct of the Chriſtian Apoſtates; but if any of them was withdrawn, the account which I have given would, in ſome inſtance, be defective.

Thus much I thought neceſſary to ſay, as ſeveral of the ſubſequent miſrepreſentations of Oroſius, of Bayle, of Fabricius, of Gregory of Tours, &c.³, which provoked the fury of Mr. Davis, are derived only from the ignorance of this common hiſtorical principle.

Another claſs of Miſrepreſentations, which my Adverſary urges with the ſame degree of vehemence (ſee in particular thoſe of Juſtin, Diodorus Siculus, and even Tacitus), requires the ſupport of another principle which has not [60] yet been introduced into the art of criticiſm; that when a modern hiſtorian appeals to the authority of the ancients for the truth of any particular fact, he makes himſelf anſwerable, I know not to what extent, for all the circum⯑jacent errors or inconſiſtencies of the authors whom he has quoted.

XIII.

I am accuſed of throwing out a falſe accu⯑ſation againſt this Father³, becauſe I had ob⯑ſerved⁴ that Ignatius, defending againſt the Gnoſtics the reſurrection of Chriſt, employs a vague and doubtful tradition, inſtead of quot⯑ing the certain teſtimony of the Evangeliſts: and this obſervation was juſtified by a remark⯑able paſſage of Ignatius, in his Epiſtle to the Smyrnaeans, which I cited according to the volume and the page of the beſt edition of the Apoſtolical Fathers, publiſhed at Amſter⯑dam, 1724, in two volumes in folio. The Criticiſm of Mr. Davis is announced by one of thoſe ſolemn declarations which leave not any refuge, if they are convicted of falſehood. ‘I cannot find any paſſage that bears the leaſt affinity to what Mr. Gibbon obſerves, in the whole Epiſtle, which I have read over more than once.’

[61] I had already marked the ſituation; nor is it in my power to prove the exiſtence of this paſſage, by any other means than by producing the words of the original. [...] ‘I have known, and I believe, that after his reſurrection likewiſe he exiſted in the fleſh: And when he came to Peter, and to the reſt, he ſaid unto them, Take, handle me, and ſee that I am not an incorporeal daemon or ſpirit. And they touched him and believ⯑ed.’ The faith of the Apoſtles confuted the impious error of the Gnoſtics, which attributed only the appearances of a human body to the Son of God: and it was the great object of Ignatius, in the laſt moments of his life, to ſecure the Chriſtians of Aſia from the ſnares of thoſe dangerous Heretics. According to the tradition of the modern Greeks, Ignatius was the child whom Jeſus received into his arms (See Tillemont Mem. Eccleſ. tom. ii. part ii. p. 43.); yet as he could hardly be old enough to remember the reſurrection of the Son of God, he muſt have derived his knowledge either from our preſent Evangeliſts, or from ſome Apocryphal Goſpel, or from ſome un⯑written tradition.

[62] 1. The Goſpels of St. Luke and St. John would undoubtedly have ſupplied Ignatius with the moſt invincible proofs of the reality of the body of Chriſt, when he appeared to the Apoſtles after his reſurrection: but neither of thoſe Goſpels contain the characteriſtic words of [...], and the important cir⯑cumſtance that either Peter, or thoſe who were with Peter, touched the body of Chriſt and believed. Had the Saint deſigned to quote the Evangeliſt on a very nice ſubject of contro⯑verſy, he would not ſurely have expoſed him⯑ſelf by an inaccurate, or rather by a falſe re⯑ference, to the juſt reproaches of the Gnoſtics. On this occaſion, therefore, Ignatius did not employ, as he might have done, againſt the Heretics, the certain teſtimony of the Evan⯑geliſts.

2. Jerom, who cites this remarkable paſſage from the Epiſtle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (See Catalog. Script. Eccleſ. in Ignatio, tom. i. p. 273. edit. Eraſm. Baſil 1537), is of opinion that it was taken from the Goſpel which he him⯑ſelf had lately tranſlated: and this, from the compariſon of two other paſſages in the ſame Work (in Jacob. et in Matthaeo, p. 264), ap⯑pears to have been the Hebrew Goſpel, which was uſed by the Nazarenes of Beraea, as the genuine compoſition of St. Matthew. Yet Jerom mentions another Copy of this Hebrew [63] Goſpel (ſo different from the Greek Text), which was extant in the library formed at Cae⯑ſarea, by the care of Pamphilus: whilſt the learned Euſebius, the friend of Pamphilus and the Biſhop of Caeſarea, very frankly declares (Hiſt. Eccleſ. l. iii. c. 36.), that he is ignorant from whence Ignatius borrowed thoſe words, which are the ſubject of the preſent Enquiry.

3. The doubt which remains, is only whe⯑ther he took them from an Apocryphal Book, or from unwritten tradition: and I thought my⯑ſelf ſafe from every ſpecies of Critics, when I embraced the rational ſentiment of Caſaubon and Pearſon. I ſhall produce the words of the Biſhop. ‘Praeterea iterum obſervandum eſt, quod de hac re ſcripſit Iſaacus Caſaubonus, Quinetiam fortaſſe verius, non ex Evangelio Hebraico, Ignatium illa verba deſcripſiſſe, verum traditionem allegaſſe non ſcriptam, quae poſtea in literas ſuerit relata, et Hebraico Evangelio, quod Matthaeo tribuebant; inſerta. Et hoc quidem mihi multo veriſimilius videtur.’ (Pearſon. Vindiciae Ignatianae, part ii. c. ix. p. 396. in tom. ii. Patr. Apoſtol.)

I may now ſubmit to the judgment of the Public, whether I have looked into the Epiſtle which I cite with ſuch a parade of learning, and how profitably Mr. Davis has read it over more than once.

XIV.

The learning and judgment of Moſheim had been of frequent uſe in the courſe of my Hiſtorical Inquiry, and I had not been wanting in proper expreſſions of gratitude. My vexa⯑tious Adverſary is always ready to ſtart from his ambuſcade, and to haraſs my march by a mode of attack, which cannot eaſily be recon⯑ciled with the laws of honourable war. The greateſt part of the Miſrepreſentations of Mo⯑ſhiem, which Mr. Davis has imputed to me⁵, are of ſuch a nature, that I muſt indeed be humble, if I could perſuade myſelf to beſtow a moment of ſerious attention on them. Whether Moſheim could prove that an abſolute com⯑munity of goods was not eſtabliſhed among the firſt Chriſtians of Jeruſalem; whether he ſuſ⯑pected the purity of the Epiſtles of Ignatius; whether he cenſured Dr. Middleton with tem⯑per or indignation (in this cauſe I muſt chal⯑lenge Mr. Davis as an incompetent judge); whether he corroborates the whole of my de⯑ſcription of the prophetic office; whether he ſpeaks with approbation of the humanity of Pliny, and whether he attributed the ſame ſenſe to the malefica of Suetonius, and the exitiabilis of Tacitus. Theſe queſtions, [65] even as Mr. Davis has ſtated them, lie open to the judgment of every reader, and the ſuper⯑fluous obſervations which I could make, would be an abuſe of their time and of my own. As little ſhall I think of conſuming their patience, by examining whether Le Clerc and Moſheim labour in the interpretation of ſome texts of the Fathers, and particularly of a paſſage of Ire⯑naeus, which ſeem to favour the pretenſions of the Roman Biſhop. The material part of the paſſage of Irenaeus conſiſts of about four lines; and in order to ſhew that the interpretations of Le Clerc and Moſheim are not laboured, Mr. Davis abridges them as much as poſſible in the ſpace of twelve pages. I know not whether the peruſal of my Hiſtory will juſtify the ſuſpicion of Mr. Davis, that I am ſecretly inclined to the intereſt of the Pope: but I cannot diſcover how the Proteſtant cauſe can be affected, if Ire⯑naeus in the ſecond, or Palavicini in the ſeven⯑teenth century, were tempted, by any private views, to countenance in their writings the ſyſtem of eccleſiaſtical dominion, which has been purſued in every age by the aſpiring Biſhops of the Imperial city. Their conduct followed the revolutions of the Chriſtian Republic, but the ſame ſpirit animated the haughty breaſts of Victor the Firſt, and of Paul the Fifth.

There ſtill remain one or two of theſe im⯑puted Miſrepreſentations, which appear, and [66] indeed only appear, to merit a little more at⯑tention. In ſtating the opinion of Moſheim with regard to the progreſs of the Goſpel, Mr. Davis boldly declares, ‘that I have altered the truth of Moſheim's hiſtory, that I might have an opportunity of contradicting the be⯑lief and wiſhes of the Fathers⁶.’ In other words, I have been guilty of uttering a mali⯑cious falſehood.

I had endeavoured to mitigate the ſanguine expreſſion of the Fathers of the ſecond century, who had too haſtily diffuſed the light of Chriſti⯑anity over every part of the globe, by ob⯑ſerving, as an undoubted fact, ‘that the Bar⯑barians of Scythia and Germany, who ſub⯑verted the Roman Monarchy, were involved in the errors of Paganiſm; and that even the conqueſt of Iberia, of Armenia, or of Aethiopia, was not attempted with any de⯑gree of ſucceſs, till the ſcepter was in the hands of an orthodox Emperor⁷.’ I had referred the curious reader to the fourth cen⯑tury of Moſheim's General Hiſtory of the Church: Now Mr. Davis has diſcovered, and can prove, from that excellent work, ‘that Chriſtianity, not long after its firſt riſe, had been introduced into the leſs as well as greater Armenia; that part of the Goths, [67] who inhabited Thracia, Maeſia, and Dacia, had received the Chriſtian religion long be⯑fore this century; and that Theophilus, their Biſhop, was preſent at the Council of Nice⁸.’

On this occaſion, the reference was made to a popular work of Moſheim, for the ſatisfac⯑tion of the reader, that he might obtain the ge⯑neral view of the progreſs of Chriſtianity in the fourth century, which I had gradually acquired by ſtudying with ſome care the Eccleſiaſtic Antiquities of the Nations beyond the limits of the Roman Empire. If I had reaſonably ſup⯑poſed that the reſult of our common inquiries muſt be the ſame, ſhould I have deſerved a very harſh cenſure for my unſuſpecting confi⯑dence? Or if I had declined the invidious taſk of ſeparating a few immaterial errors, from a juſt and judicious repreſentation, might not my reſpect for the name and merit of Moſheim, have claimed ſome indulgence? But I diſdain thoſe excuſes, which only a candid adverſary would allow. I can meet Mr. Davis on the hard ground of controverſy, and retort on his own head the charge of concealing a part of the truth. He himſelf has dared to ſuppreſs the words of my text, which immediately followed his quotation. ‘Before that time the various [68] accidents of war and commerce might indeed diffuſe an imperfect knowledge of the Goſpel among the tribes of Caledonia, and among the borderers of the Rhine, the Danube, and the Euphrates;’ and Mr. Davis has likewiſe ſuppreſed one of the juſtificatory Notes on this paſſage, which expreſsly points out the time and circumſtances of the firſt Gothic con⯑verſions. Theſe exceptions, which I had cau⯑tiouſly inſerted, and Mr. Davis has cautiouſly concealed, are ſuperfluous for the provinces of Thrace, Maeſia, and the Leſſer Armenia, which were contained within the precincts of the Ro⯑man Empire. They allow an ample ſcope for the more early converſion of ſome independent diſtricts of Dacia and the Greater Armenia, which bordered on the Danube and Euphrates; and the entire ſenſe of this paſſage, which Mr. Davis firſt mutilates and then attacks, is per⯑fectly conſiſtent with the original text of the learned Moſheim.

And yet I will fairly confeſs, that after a nicer inquiry into the epoch of the Armenian Church, I am not ſatisfied with the accuracy of my own expreſſion. The aſſurance that the firſt Chriſtian King, and the firſt Archbiſhop, Tiridates, and St. Gregory the Illuminator, were ſtill alive ſeveral years after the death of Conſtantine, inclined me to believe, that the converſion of Armenia was poſterior to the au⯑ſpicious [69] Revolution, which had given the ſcep⯑ter of Rome to the hands of an orthodox Em⯑peror. But I had not enough conſidered the two following circumſtances. 1. I might have recollected the dates aſſigned by Moſes of Cho⯑rene, who, on this occaſion, may be regarded as a competent witneſs. Tiridates aſcended the throne of Armenia in the third year of Dio⯑cletian (Hiſt. Armeniae, l. ii. c. 79. p. 207.), and St. Gregory, who was inveſted with the Epiſcopal character in the ſeventeenth year of Tiridates, governed almoſt thirty years the Church of Armenia, and diſappeared from the world in the forty-ſixth year of the reign of the ſame Prince. (Hiſt. Armeniae, l. ii. c. 88. p. 224, 225.) The conſecration of St. Gre⯑gory muſt therefore be placed A. D. 303, and the converſion of the King and kingdom was ſoon atchieved by that ſucceſsful miſſionary. 2. The unjuſt and inglorious war which Maxi⯑min undertook againſt the Armenians, the an⯑cient faithful allies of the Republic, was evi⯑dently derived from a motive of ſuperſtitious zeal. The hiſtorian Euſebius (Hiſt. Eccleſ. l. ix. c. 8. p. 448. edit. Cantab.) conſiders the pious Armenians as a nation of Chriſtians, who bravely defended themſelves from the hoſtile oppreſſion of an idolatrous tyrant. Inſtead of maintaining ‘that the converſion of Armenia was not attempted with any degree of ſucceſs [70] till the ſcepter was in the hands of an ortho⯑dox Emperor,’ I ought to have obſerved, that the ſeeds of the faith were deeply ſown during the ſeaſon of the laſt and greateſt perſe⯑cution, that many Roman exiles might aſſiſt the labours of Gregory, and that the renowned Tiridates, the hero of the Eaſt, may diſpute with Conſtantine the honour of being the firſt Sovereign who embraced the Chriſtian religion.

In a future edition, I ſhall rectify an expreſ⯑ſion which, in ſtrictneſs, can only be applied to the kingdoms of Iberia and Aethiopia. Had the error been expoſed by Mr. Davis himſelf, I ſhould not have been aſhamed to correct it; but I am aſhamed at being reduced to contend with an adverſary who is unable to diſcover, or to improve his own advantages.

But inſtead of proſecuting any inquiry from whence the public might have gained inſtruc⯑tion, and himſelf credit, Mr. Davis chuſes to perplex his readers with ſome angry cavils about the progreſs of the Goſpel in the ſecond century. What does he mean to eſtabliſh or to refute? Have I denied, that before the end of that period Chriſtianity was very widely diffuſed both in the Eaſt and in the Weſt? Has not Juſtin Martyr affirmed, without exception or limitation, that it was already preached to every nation on the face of the earth? Is that propoſition true at preſent? Could it be true in [71] the time of Juſtin? Does not Moſheim acknow⯑ledge the exaggeration? ‘Demus, nec enim quae in occulos incurrunt infitiari audemus, eſſe in his verbis exaggerationis nonnihil. Certum enim eſt diu poſt Juſtini aetatem, multas orbis terrarum gentes cognitione Chriſti caruiſſe.’ (Moſheim de Rebus Chriſti⯑anis, p. 203.) Does he not expoſe (p. 205.) with becoming ſcorn and indignation, the falſe⯑hood and vanity of the hyperboles of Tertul⯑lian? ‘bonum hominem aeſtu imaginationis elatum non ſatis adtendiſſe ad ea quae litteris conſignabat.’

The high eſteem which Mr. Davis expreſſes for the writings of Moſheim, would alone con⯑vince how little he has read them, ſince he muſt have been perpetually offended and diſ⯑guſted by a train of thinking, the moſt repug⯑nant to his own. His jealouſy, however, for the honour of Moſheim, provokes him to ar⯑raign the boldneſs of Mr. Gibbon, who pre⯑ſumes falſely to charge ſuch an eminent man with unjuſtifiable aſſertions ⁹. I might obſerve, that my ſtyle, which on this occaſion was more modeſt and moderate, has acquired, perhaps undeſignedly, an illiberal caſt from the rough hand of Mr. Davis. But as my veracity is im⯑peached, I may be leſs ſolicitous about my po⯑liteneſs; [72] and though I have repeatedly declined the faireſt opportunities of correcting the errors of my predeceſſors, yet as long as I have truth on my ſide, I am not eaſily daunted by the names of the moſt eminent men.

The aſſertion of Moſheim, which did not ſeem to be juſtified¹ by the authority of Lac⯑tantius, was, that the wiſe and daughter of Di⯑ocletian, Priſca and Valeria, had been pri⯑vately baptized. Mr. Davis is ſure that the words of Moſheim, ‘Chriſtianis ſacris clam initiata,’ need not be confined to the rite of baptiſm; and he is equally ſure, that the re⯑ference to Moſheim does not lead us to diſ⯑cover even the name of Valeria. In both theſe aſſurances he is groſsly miſtaken; but it is the misfortune of controverſy, that an error may be committed in three or four words, which cannot be rectified in leſs than thirty or forty lines.

1. The true and the ſole meaning of the Chriſtian initiation, one of the familiar and fa⯑vourite alluſions of the Fathers of the fourth century, is clearly explained by the exact and laborious Bingham. ‘The baptized were alſo ſtyled [...], which the Latins call initiati, the initiated, that is admitted to the uſe of the ſacred offices, and knowledge [73] of ſacred myſteries of the Chriſtian Religion. Hence came that form of ſpeaking ſo fre⯑quently uſed by St. Chryſoſtom, and other ancient writers, when they touched upon any doctrines or myſteries which the Cate⯑chumens underſtood not [...], the initiated know what is ſpoken. St. Ambroſe writes a book to theſe initiati; Iſidore of Peluſium, and Heſychius call them [...] and [...]. Whence the Catechumens have the contrary names, [...], [...], [...], the uniniti⯑ated or unbaptized.’ (Antiquities of the Chriſtian Church, l. i. c. 4. N^o 2. vol. i. p. 11. fol. edit.) Had I preſumed to ſuppoſe that Moſheim was capable of employing a technical expreſſion in a looſe and equivocal ſenſe, I ſhould indeed have violated the reſpect which I have always entertained for his learning and abilities.

2. But Mr. Davis cannot diſcover in the text of Moſheim the name of Valeria. In that caſe Moſheim would have ſuffered another ſlight inaccuracy to drop from his pen, as the paſſage of Lactantius, ‘ſacrificio pollui coë⯑git,’ on which he founds his aſſertion, in⯑cludes the names both of Priſca and Valeria. But I am not reduced to the neceſſity of accu⯑ſing another in my own defence. Moſheim has [74] properly and expreſsly declared that Valeria imitated the pious example of her mother Priſ⯑ca, ‘Gener Diocletiani uxorem habebat Vale⯑riam matris exemplum pietate erga Deum imitantem et a cultu fictorum Numinum alienam.’ (Moſheim, p. 913.) Mr. Davis has a bad habit of greedily ſnapping at the firſt words of a reference, without giving himſelf the trouble of going to the end of the page or paragraph.

Theſe trifling and peeviſh cavils would, per⯑haps, have been confounded with ſome criticiſms of the ſame ſtamp, on which I had beſtowed a ſlight, though ſufficient notice, in the begin⯑ning of this article of Moſheim; had not my attention been awakened by a peroration worthy of Tertullian himſelf, if Tertullian had been devoid of eloquence as well as of moderation— ‘Much leſs does the Chriſtian Moſheim give our infidel Hiſtorian any pretext for inſerting that illiberal malignant inſinuation, "That Chriſtianity has, in every age, acknowledged its important obligations to FEMALE devo⯑tion;" the remark is truly contemptible ².’

It is not my deſign to fill whole pages with a tedious enumeration of the many illuſtrious examples of female devotions, which, in every age, and almoſt in every country, have pro⯑moted [75] the intereſt of Chriſtianity. Such in⯑ſtances will readily offer themſelves to thoſe who have the ſlighteſt knowledge of Eccleſia⯑ſtical Hiſtory; nor is it neceſſary that I ſhould remind them how much the charms, the influ⯑ence, the devotion of Clotilda, and of her great-grand-daughter Bertha, contributed to the converſion of France and England. Reli⯑gion may accept, without a bluſh, the ſervices of the pureſt and moſt gentle portion of the human ſpecies: but there are ſome advocates who would diſgrace Chriſtianity, if Chriſtianity could be diſgraced, by the manner in which they defend her cauſe.

XV.

As I could not readily procure the works of Gregory of Nyſſa, I borrowed³ from the accu⯑rate and indefatigable Tillemont, a paſſage in the Life of Gregory Thaumaturgus, or the Wonder-worker, which affirmed that when the Saint took poſſeſſion of his Epiſcopal See, he found only SEVENTEEN Chriſtians in the city of Neo-Caeſarea, and the adjacent country, ‘Les environs, la Campagne, le pays d'alentour.’ (Mem. Eccleſ. Tom. iv. p. 677. 691. Edit. Bruſſelles, 1706). Theſe expreſſions of Til⯑lemont, to whom I explicitly acknowledged [76] my obligation, appeared ſynonymous to the word Dioceſe, the whole territory intruſted to the paſtoral care of the Wonder-worker, and I added the epithet of extenſive; becauſe I was appriſed that Neo-Caeſarea was the capital of the Polemoniac Pontus, and that the whole kingdom of Pontus, which ſtretched above five hundred miles along the coaſt of the Eux⯑ine, was divided between ſixteen or ſeventeen Biſhops. (See the Georgraphia Eccleſiaſtica of Charles de St. Paul, and Lucas Hoſtenius, p. 249, 250, 251.) Thus far I may not be thought to have deſerved any cenſure; but the omiſſion of the ſubſequent part of the ſame paſſage, which imports that at his death the Wonder-worker left no more than ſeventeen Pagans, may ſeem to wear a partial and ſuſpi⯑cious aſpect.

Let me therefore firſt obſerve, as ſome evi⯑dence of an impartial diſpoſition, that I eaſily admitted, as the cool obſervation of the philo⯑ſophic Lucian, the angry and intereſted com⯑plaint of the falſe prophet Alexander, that Pontus was filled with Chriſtians. This com⯑plaint was made under the reigns of Marcus or of Commodus, with whom the impoſtor ſo admirably expoſed by Lucian was contempo⯑rary: and I had contented myſelf with remark⯑ing that the numbers of Chriſtians muſt have [77] been very unequally diſtributed in the ſeveral parts of Pontus, ſince the dioceſe of Neo-Cae⯑ſarea contained, above ſixty years afterwards, only ſeventeen Chriſtians. Such was the in⯑conſiderable flock which Gregory began to feed about the year two hundred and forty, and the real or fabulous converſions aſcribed by that Wonder-working Biſhop during a reign of thirty years, are totally foreign to the ſtate of Chriſtianity in the preceding century. This obvious reflection may ſerve to anſwer the objection of Mr. Davis⁴, and of another adverſary⁵, who on this occaſion is more li⯑beral than Mr. Davis of thoſe harſh epithets ſo familiar to the tribe of Polemics.

XVI.

‘Mr. Gibbon ſays⁶, "Pliny was ſent into Bithynia (according to Pagi) in the year 110.’

‘Now that accurate Chronologer places it in the year 102. See the fact recorded in his Critica-Hiſtorico-Chronologica in Annales C. Baronii, A. D. 102. p. 99. ſaec. ii. § 3.’

[78] ‘I appeal to my reader, Whether this anachroniſm does not plainly prove that our Hiſtorian never looked into Pagi's Chronology, though he has not heſitated to make a pompous reference to him in his note⁷?’

I cannot help obſerving, that either Mr. Davis's Dictionary is extremely confined, or that in his Philoſophy all ſins are of equal magnitude. Every error of fact or language, every inſtance where he does not know to re⯑concile the original and the reference, he ex⯑preſſes by the gentle word of miſrepreſentation. An inaccurate appeal to the ſentiment of Pagi, on a ſubject where I muſt have been perfectly diſintereſted, might have been ſtyled a lapſe of memory, inſtead of being cenſured as the effect of vanity and ignorance. Pagi is neither a difficult nor an uncommon writer, nor could I hope to derive much additional fame from a pompous quotation of his writings which I had never ſeen.

The words employed by Mr. Davis, of fact, of record, of anachroniſm, are unſkilfully cho⯑ſen, and ſo unhappily applied, as to betray a very ſhameful ignorance, either of the Engliſh language, or of the nature of this Chronologi⯑cal Queſtion. The date of Pliny's govern⯑ment of Bithynia is not a fact recorded by any ancient writer, but an opinion which modern [79] critics have variouſly formed, from the conſi⯑deration of preſumptive and collateral evidence. Cardinal Baronius placed the conſulſhip of Pliny one year too late; and, as he was per⯑ſuaded the old practice of th republic ſtill ſubſiſted, he naturally ſuppoſed that Pliny obtained his province immediately after the expiration of his conſulſhip. He therefore ſends him into Bithynia in the year which, according to his erroneous computation, co⯑incided with the year one hundred and four, (Baron. Annal. Eccleſ. A. D. 103. N^o 1. 104. N^o 1), or, according to the true chro⯑nology, with the year one hundred and two, of the Chriſtian Aera. This miſtake of Baronius, Pagi, with the aſſiſtance of his friend Cardinal Noris, undertakes to correct. From an accurate parallel of the Annals of Trajan and the Epiſtles of Pliny, he deduces his proofs that Pliny remained at Rome ſeveral years after his Conſulſhip: by his own inge⯑nious, though ſometimes fanciful theory, of the imperial Quinquennalia, &c. Pagi at laſt diſcovers that Pliny made his entrance into Bithynia in the year one hundred and ten. ‘Plinius igitur anno Chriſti CENTESIMO DE⯑CIMO Bithyniam intravit.’ Pagi, tom. i. p. 100.

I will be more indulgent to my adverſary than he has been to me. I will admit, that he [80] has looked into Pagi; but I muſt add, that he has only looked into that accurate Chronologer. To rectify the errors, which, in the courſe of a laborious and original work, had eſcaped the diligence of the Cardinal, was the arduous taſk which Pagi propoſed to execute: and for the ſake of perſpicuity, he diſtributes his criticiſms according to the particular dates, whether juſt or faulty, of the Chronology of Baronius him⯑ſelf. Under the year 102, Mr. Davis con⯑fuſedly ſaw a long argument about Pliny and Bithynia, and without condeſcending to read the Author whom he pompouſly quotes, this haſty Critic imputes to him the opinion which he had ſo laboriouſly deſtroyed.

My readers, if any readers have accompani⯑ed me thus far, muſt be ſatisfied, and indeed ſatiated, with the repeated proofs which I have made of the weight and temper of my adver⯑ſary's weapons. They have, in every aſſault, fallen dead and lifeleſs to the ground: they have more than once recoiled, and dangerouſly wounded, the unſkilful hand that had preſumed to uſe them. I have now examined all the miſrepreſentations and inaccuracies, which even for a moment could perplex the ignorant, or deceive the credulous; the few imputations which I have neglected, are ſtill more palpably falſe, or ſtill more evidently trifling, and even [81] the friends of Mr. Davis will ſcarcely continue to aſcribe my contempt to my fear.

The firſt part of his Critical Volume might admit, though it did not deſerve, a particular reply. But the eaſy, though tedious compila⯑tion, which fills the remainder⁸, and which Mr. Davis has produced as the evidence of my ſhameful plagiariſms, may be ſet in its true light by three or four ſhort and general reflex⯑ions.

I. Mr. Davis has diſpoſed, in two columns, the paſſages which he thinks proper to ſelect from my Two laſt Chapters, and the corre⯑ſponding paſſages from Middleton, Barbeyrac, Beauſobre, Dodwell, &c. to the moſt import⯑ant of which he had been regularly guided by my own quotations. According to the opi⯑nion which he has conceived of literary pro⯑perty, to agree is to follow, and to follow is to ſteal. He celebrates his own ſagacity with loud and reiterated applauſe, declares with infinite facetiouſneſs, that if he reſtored to every au⯑thor the paſſages which Mr. Gibbon has purloined, he would appear as naked as the proud and gaudy Daw in the Fable, when each bird had plucked away its own plumes. Inſtead of being angry with Mr. Davis for the parallel which he has extended to ſo great a [82] length, I am under ſome obligation to his induſtry for the copious proofs which he has furniſhed the reader, that my repreſentation of ſome of the moſt important facts of Eccleſiaſti⯑cal Antiquity, is ſupported by the authority or opinion of the moſt ingenious and learned of the modern writers. The Public may not, perhaps, be very eager to aſſiſt Mr. Davis in his favourite amuſement of depluming me. They may think that if the materials which compoſe my Two laſt Chapters are curious and valuable, it is of little moment to whom they properly belong. If my readers are ſatisfied with the form, the colours, the new arrangement which I have given to the labours of my pre⯑deceſſors, they may perhaps conſider me not as a contemptible Thief, but as an honeſt and induſtrious Manufacturer, who has fairly pro⯑cured the raw materials, and worked them up with a laudable degree of ſkill and ſucceſs.

II. About two hundred years ago, the Court of Rome diſcovered that the ſyſtem which had been erected by ignorance muſt be defended and countenanced by the aid, or at leaſt by the abuſe, of ſcience. The groſſer legends of the middle ages were abandoned to contempt, but the ſupremacy and infallibility of two hundred Popes, the virtues of many thouſand Saints, and the miracles which they either performed [83] or related, have been laboriouſly conſecrated in the Eccleſiaſtical Annals of Cardinal Baro⯑nius. A Theological Barometer might be formed, of which the Cardinal and our coun⯑tryman Dr. Middleton ſhould conſtitute the oppoſite and remote extremities, as the former ſunk to the loweſt degree of credulity, which was compatible with learning, and the latter roſe to the higheſt pitch of ſcepticiſm, in any wiſe conſiſtent with Religion. The interme⯑diate gradations would be filled by a line of eccleſiaſtical critics, whoſe rank has been fixed by the circumſtances of their temper and ſtu⯑dies, as well as by the ſpirit of the church or ſociety to which they were attached. It would be amuſing enough to calculate the weight of prejudice in the air of Rome, of Oxford, of Paris, and of Holland; and ſometimes to ob⯑ſerve the irregular tendency of Papiſts towards freedom, ſometimes to remark the unnatural gravitation of Proteſtants towards ſlavery. But it is uſeful to borrow the aſſiſtance of ſo many learned and ingenious men, who have viewed the firſt ages of the Church in every light, and from every ſituation. If we ſkilfully combine the paſſions and prejudices, the hoſtile motives and intentions, of the ſeveral theologians, we may frequently extract knowledge from cre⯑dulity, moderation from zeal, and impartial [84] truth from the moſt diſingenuous controverſy. It is the right, it is the duty of a critical hiſto⯑rian to collect, to weigh, to ſelect the opinions of his predeceſſors; and the more diligence he has exerted in the ſearch, the more rationally he may hope to add ſome improvement to the ſtock of knowledge, the uſe of which has been common to all.

III. Beſides the ideas which may be ſug⯑geſted by the ſtudy of the moſt learned and ingenious of the moderns, the hiſtorian may be indebted to them for the occaſional com⯑munication of ſome paſſages of the ancients, which might otherwiſe have eſcaped his know⯑ledge or his memory. In the conſideration of any extenſive ſubject, none will pretend to have read all that has been written, or to recollect all that they have read: nor is there any diſ⯑grace in recurring to the writers who have pro⯑feſſedly treated any queſtions, which in the courſe of a long narrative we are called upon to mention in a ſlight and incidental manner. If I touch upon the obſcure and fanciful theo⯑logy of the Gnoſtics, I can accept without a bluſh the aſſiſtance of the candid Beauſobre; and when, amidſt the fury of contending par⯑ties, I trace the progreſs of eccleſiaſtical domi⯑nion, I am not aſhamed to confeſs myſelf the grateful diſciple of the impartial Moſheim. [85] In the next Volume of my Hiſtory, the Reader and the Critic muſt prepare themſelves to ſee me make a ſtill more liberal uſe of the labours of thoſe indefatigable workmen who have dug deep into the mine of antiquity. The Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries are far more voluminous than their predeceſſors; the writings of Jerom, of Auguſtin, of Chryſoſtom, &c. cover the walls of our libraries. The ſmalleſt part is of the hiſtorical kind: yet the treatiſes which ſeem the leaſt to invite the curioſity of the reader, frequently conceal very uſeful hints, or very valuable facts. The polemic who in⯑volves himſelf and his antagoniſts in a cloud of argumentation, ſometimes relates the origin and progreſs of the hereſy which he confutes; and the preacher who declaims againſt the luxury, deſcribes the manners, of the age; and ſeaſonably introduces the mention of ſome public calamity, that he may aſcribe it to the juſtice of offended Heaven. It would ſurely be unreaſonable to expect that the hiſtorian ſhould peruſe enormous volumes, with the un⯑certain hope of extracting a few intereſting lines, or that he ſhould ſacrifice whole days to the momentary amuſement of his Reader. For⯑tunately for us both, the diligence of eccleſi⯑ſiaſtical critics has facilitated our inquiries: the compilations of Tillemont might alone be con⯑ſidered [86] as an immenſe repertory of truth and fable, of almoſt all that the Fathers have pre⯑ſerved, or invented, or believed; and if we equally avail ourſelves of the labours of con⯑tending ſectaries, we ſhall often diſcover, that the ſame paſſages which the prudence of one of the diſputants would have ſuppreſſed or diſ⯑guiſed, are placed in the moſt conſpicuous light by the active and intereſted zeal of his adverſary. On theſe occaſions, what is the duty of a faithful hiſtorian, who derives from ſome modern writer the knowledge of ſome ancient teſtimony, which he is deſirous of in⯑troducing into his own narrative? It is his duty, and it has been my invariable practice, to conſult the original; to ſtudy with attention the words, the deſign, the ſpirit, the context, the ſituation of the paſſage to which I had been referred; and before I appropriated it to my own uſe, to juſtify my own declaration, ‘that I had carefully examined all the origi⯑nal materials that could illuſtrate the ſubject which I had undertaken to treat.’ If this important obligation has ſometimes been im⯑perfectly fulfilled, I have only omitted what it would have been impracticable for me to per⯑form. The greateſt city in the world is ſtill deſtitute of that uſeful inſtitution, a public li⯑brary; and the writer who has undertaken to [87] treat any large hiſtorical ſubject, is reduced to the neceſſity of purchaſing, for his private uſe, a numerous and valuable collection of the books which muſt form the baſis of his work. The diligence of his bookſellers will not always prove ſucceſsful; and the candour of his readers will not always expect, that, for the ſake of verify⯑ing an accidental quotation of ten lines, he ſhould load himſelf with a uſeleſs and expen⯑ſive ſeries of ten volumes. In a very few in⯑ſtances, where I had not the opportunity of conſulting the originals, I have adopted their teſtimony on the faith of modern guides, of whoſe fidelity I was ſatisfied; but on theſe oc⯑caſions⁹, inſtead of decking myſelf with the borrowed plumes of Tillemont or Lardner, I have been moſt ſcrupulouſly exact in marking the extent of my reading, and the ſource of my information. This diſtinction, which a ſenſe of truth an modeſty had engaged me to expreſs, is ungenerouſly abuſed by Mr. Davis, who ſeems happy to inform his Readers, that ‘in ONE inſtance (Chap. xvi. 164. or, in the firſt edition, 163.) I have, by an unaccount⯑able overſight, unfortunately for myſelf, for⯑got to drop the modern, and that I modeſtly diſclaim all knowledge of Athanaſius, but what [88] I had picked up from Tillemont¹.’ Without animadverting on the decency of theſe expreſ⯑ſions, which are now grown familiar to me, I ſhall content myſelf with obſerving, that as I had frequently quoted Euſebius, or Cyprian, or Tertullian, becauſe I had read them; ſo, in this inſtance, I only made my reference to Til⯑lemont, becauſe I had not read, and did not poſſeſs, the works of Athanaſius. The pro⯑greſs of my undertaking has ſince directed me to peruſe the Hiſtorical Apologies of the Arch⯑biſhop of Alexandria, whoſe life is a very in⯑tereſting part of the age in which he lived; and if Mr. Davis ſhould have the curioſity to look into my Second Volume, he will find that I make a free and frequent appeal to the writ⯑ings of Athanaſius. Whatever may be the opinion or practice of my adverſary, this I ap⯑prehend to be the dealing of a fair and honour⯑able man.

IV. The hiſtorical monuments of the three firſt centuries of eccleſiaſtical antiquity are nei⯑ther very numerous, nor very prolix. From the end of the Act of the Apoſtles, to the time when the firſt Apology of Juſtin Martyr was preſented, there intervened a dark and doubt⯑ful period of fourſcore years; and, even if the Epiſtles of Ignatius ſhould be approved by the [89] critic, they could not be very ſerviceable to the hiſtorian. From the middle of the ſecond to the beginning of the fourth century, we gain our knowledge of the ſtate and progreſs of Chriſtianity from the ſucceſſive Apologies which were occaſionally compoſed by Juſtin, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Origen, &c; from the Epiſtles of Cyprian; from a few ſincere acts of the Martyrs; from ſome moral or contro⯑verſial tracts, which indirectly explain the events and manners of the times; from the rare and accidental notice which profane writers have taken of the Chriſtian ſect; from the decla⯑matory Narrative which celebrates the deaths of the perſecutors; and from the Eccleſiaſtical Hiſtory of Euſebius, who has preſerved ſome valuable fragments of more early writers. Since the revival of letters, theſe original ma⯑terials have been the common fund of critics and hiſtorians: nor has it ever been imagined, that the abſolute and excluſive property of a paſſage in Euſebius or Tertullian was acquired by the firſt who had an opportunity of quoting it. The learned work of Moſheim, de Rebus Chriſtianis ante Conſtantinum, was printed in the year 1753; and if I were poſſeſſed of the pa⯑tience and diſingenuity of Mr. Davis, I would engage to find all the ancient teſtimonies that he has alleged, in the writings of Dodwell or [90] Tillemont, which were publiſhed before the end of the laſt century. But if I were animated by any malevolent intentions againſt Dodwell or Tillemont, I could as eaſily, and as unfairly, fix on them the guilt of Plagiariſm, by pro⯑ducing the ſame paſſages tranſcribed or tranſ⯑lated at full length in the Annals of Cardinal Baronius. Let not criticiſm be any longer diſ⯑graced by the practice of ſuch unworthy arts. Inſtead of admitting ſuſpicions as falſe as they are ungenerous, condour will acknowledge, that Moſheim or Dodwell, Tillemont or Baro⯑nius, enjoyed the ſame right, and often were under the ſame obligation, of quoting the paſ⯑ſages which they had read, and which were in⯑diſpenſably requiſite to confirm the truth and ſubſtance of their ſimilar narratives. Mr. Davis is ſo far from allowing me the benefit of this common indulgence, or rather of this common right, that he ſtigmatizes with the name of Plagiariſm a cloſe and literal agreement with Dodwell in the account of ſome parts of the perſecution of Diocletian, where a few chap⯑ters of Euſebius and Lactantius, perhaps of Lactantius alone, are the ſole materials from whence our knowledge could be derived, and where, if I had not tranſcribed, I muſt have invented. He is even bold enough (bold is not the proper word) to conceive ſome hopes of [91] perſuading his readers, that in Hiſtorian who has employed ſeveral years of his life, and ſeveral hundred pages, on the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, had never read Oroſius, or the Auguſtan Hiſtory; and that he was forced to borrow, at ſecond-hand, his quota⯑tions from the Theodoſian Code. I cannot profeſs myſelf very deſirous of Mr. Davis's ac⯑quaintance; but if he will take the trouble of calling at my houſe any afternoon when I am not at home, my ſervant ſhall ſhew him my library, which he will find tolerably well fur⯑niſhed with the uſeful authors, ancient as well as modern, eccleſiaſtical as well as profane, who have directly ſupplied me with the mate⯑rials of my Hiſtory.

The peculiar reaſons, and they are not of the moſt flattering kind, which urged me to repel the furious and feeble attack of Mr. Davis, have been already mentioned. But ſince I am drawn thus reluctantly into the liſts of contro⯑verſy, I ſhall not retire till I have ſaluted, ei⯑ther with ſtern defiance or gentle courteſy, the theological champions who have ſignalized their ardour to break a lance againſt the ſhield of a Pagan adverſary. The fifteenth and ſix⯑teenth Chapters have been honoured with the notice of ſeveral writers, whoſe names and characters ſeemed to promiſe more maturity of [92] judgment and learning than could reaſonably be expected from the unfiniſhed ſtudies of a Batchelor of Arts. The Reverend Mr. Ap⯑thorpe, Dr. Watſon, the Regius Profeſſor of Divinity in the Univerſity of Cambridge, Dr. Chelſum of Chriſt Church, and his aſſociate Dr. Randolph, Preſident of Chriſt Church College, and the Lady Margaret's Profeſſor of Divinity in the Univerſity of Oxford, have given me a fair right, which, however, I ſhall not abuſe, of freely declaring my opinion on the ſubject of their reſpective criticiſms.

If I am not miſtaken, Mr. Apthorpe was the firſt who announced to the Public his in⯑tention of examining the intereſting ſubject which I had treated in the Two laſt Chapters of my Hiſtory. The multitude of collateral and acceſſary ideas which preſented themſelves to the Author inſenſibly ſwelled the bulk of his papers to the ſize of a large volume in octavo; the publication was delayed many months be⯑yond the time of the firſt advertiſement; and when Mr. Apthorpe's Letters appeared, I was ſurpriſed to find, that I had ſcarcely any intereſt or concern in their contents. They are filled with general obſervations on the Study of Hiſtory, with a large and uſeful catalogue of Hiſtorians, and with a variety of reflections, moral and religious, all preparatory to the di⯑rect [93] and formal conſideration of my Two laſt Chapters, which Mr. Apthorpe ſeems to re⯑ſerve for the ſubject of a ſecond Volume. I ſincerely reſpect the learning, the piety, and the candour of this Gentleman, and muſt con⯑ſider it as a mark of his eſteem, that he has thought proper to begin his approaches at ſo great a diſtance from the fortifications which he deſigned to attack.

When Dr. Watſon gave to the Public his Apology for Chriſtianity, in a Series of Let⯑ters, he addreſſed them to the Author of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, with a juſt confidence that he had conſidered this important object in a manner not unworthy of his antagoniſt or of himſelf. Dr. Watſon's mode of thinking bears a liberal and philoſo⯑phic caſt; his thoughts are expreſſed with ſpirit, and that ſpirit is always tempered by politeneſs and moderation. Such is the man whom I ſhould be happy to call my friend, and whom I ſhould not bluſh to call my an⯑tagoniſt. But the ſame motives which might tempt me to accept, or even to ſolicit, a pri⯑vate and amicable conference, diſſuaded me from entering into a public controverſy with a Writer of ſo reſpectable a character; and I em⯑braced the earlieſt opportunity of expreſſing to Dr. Watſon himſelf, how ſincerely I agreed [94] with him in thinking, ‘That as the world is now poſſeſſed of the opinion of us both upon the ſubject in queſtion, it may be perhaps as proper for us both to leave it in this ſtate².’ The nature of the ingenious Pro⯑feſſor's Apology contributed to ſtrengthen the inſuperable reluctance to engage in hoſtile al⯑tercation which was common to us both, by convincing me, that ſuch an altercation was unneceſſary as well as unpleaſant. He very juſtly and politely declares, that a conſider⯑able part, near ſeventy pages, of his ſmall vo⯑lume are not directed to me³, but to a ſet of men whom he places in an odious and con⯑temptible light. He leaves to other hands the defence of the leading Eccleſiaſtics, even of the primitive church; and without being very anxious, either to ſoften their vices and indiſ⯑cretion, or to aggravate the cruelty of the Heathen Perſecutors, he paſſes over in ſilence the greateſt part of my Sixteenth Chapter. It is not ſo much the purpoſe of the Apologiſt to examine the facts which have been advanced by the Hiſtorian, as to remove the impreſſions which may have been formed by many of his Readers; and the remarks of Dr. Watſon conſiſt more properly of general argumentation than of [95] particular criticiſm. He fairly owns, that I have expreſsly allowed the full and irreſiſtible weight of the firſt great cauſe of the ſucceſs of Chriſtianity⁴, and he is too candid to deny that the five ſecondary cauſes, which I had at⯑tempted to explain, operated with ſome degree of active energy towards the accompliſhment of that great event. The only queſtion which remains between us, relates to the degree of the weight and effect of thoſe ſecondary cauſes; and as I am perſuaded that our philoſophy is not of the dogmatic kind, we ſhould ſoon ac⯑knowledge that this preciſe degree cannot be aſcertained by reaſoning, nor perhaps be ex⯑preſſed by words. In the courſe of this en⯑quiry, ſome incidental difficulties have ariſen, which I had ſtated with impartiality, and which Dr. Watſon reſolves with ingenuity and tem⯑per. If in ſome inſtances he ſeems to have miſapprehended my ſentiments, I may heſitate whether I ſhould impute the fault to my own want of clearneſs or to his want of attention, but I can never entertain a ſuſpicion that Dr. Watſon would deſcend to employ the diſinge⯑nuous arts of vulgar controverſy.

There is, however, one paſſage, and one paſ⯑ſage only, which muſt not paſs without ſome [96] explanation; and I ſhall the more eagerly em⯑brace this occaſion to illuſtrate what I had ſaid, as the miſconſtruction of my true meaning ſeems to have made an involuntary, but unfa⯑vourable, impreſſion on the liberal mind of Dr. Watſon. As I endeavour not to palliate the ſeverity, but to diſcover the motives, of the Roman Magiſtrates. I had remarked, ‘it was in vain that the oppreſſed Believer aſſerted the unalienable rights of con⯑ſcience and private judgment. Though his ſituation might excite the pity, his argu⯑ments could never reach the underſtanding, either of the philoſophic or of the believing part of the Pagan world⁵.’ The humanity of Dr. Watſon takes fire on the ſuppoſed pro⯑vocation, and he aſks me with unuſual quick⯑neſs, ‘How, Sir, are the arguments for liberty of conſcience ſo exceedingly inconcluſive, that you think them incapable of reaching the underſtanding even of philoſophers⁶?’ He continues to obſerve, that a captious ad⯑verſary would embrace with avidity the op⯑portunity this paſſage affords of blotting my character with the odious ſtain of being a Per⯑ſecutor; a ſtain which no learning can wipe out, which no genius or ability can render [97] amiable; and though he himſelf does not en⯑tertain ſuch an opinion of my principles, his ingenuity tries in vain to provide me with the means of eſcape.

I muſt lament that I have not been ſucceſſ⯑ful in the explanation of a very ſimple notion of the ſpirit both of philoſophy and of poly⯑theiſm, which I have repeatedly inculcated. The arguments which aſſert the rights of con⯑ſcience are not inconcluſive in themſelves, but the underſtanding of the Greeks and Romans was fortified againſt their evidence by an in⯑vincible prejudice. When we liſten to the voice of Bayle, of Locke, and of genuine reaſon, in favour of religious toleration, we ſhall eaſily perceive that our moſt forcible appeal is made to our mutual feelings. If the Jew was al⯑lowed to argue with the Inquiſitor, he would requeſt that for a moment they might ex⯑change their different ſituations, and might ſafely aſk his Catholic Tyrant, whether the fear of death would compel him to enter the ſyna⯑as gogue, to receive the mark of circumciſion, and to partake of the paſchal lamb. As ſoon as the caſe of perſecution was brought home to the breaſt of the Inquiſitor, he muſt have ſound ſome difficulty in ſuppreſſing the dictates of natural equity, which would inſinuate to his conſcience, that he could have no right to in⯑flict [98] thoſe puniſhments which, under ſimilar circumſtances, he would eſteem it as his duty to encounter. But this argument could not reach the underſtanding of a Polytheiſt, or of an ancient Philoſopher. The former was ready, whenever he was ſummoned, or indeed with⯑out being ſummoned, to fall proſtrate before the altars of any Gods who were adored in any part of the world, and to admit a vague per⯑ſuaſion of the truth and divinity of the moſt different modes of religion. The Philoſopher, who conſidered them, at leaſt in their literal ſenſe, as equally falſe and abſurd, was not aſhamed to diſguiſe his ſentiments, and to frame his actions according to the laws of his country, which impoſed the ſame obligation on the philoſophers and the people. When Pliny declared, that whatever was the opinion of the Chriſtians, their obſtinacy deſerved pu⯑niſhment, the abſurd cruelty of Pliny was excuſed in his own eye, by the conſciouſneſs that, in the ſituation of the Chriſtians, he would not have refuſed the religious compliance which he exacted. I ſhall not repeat, that the Pa⯑gan worſhip was a matter, not of opinion, but of cuſtom; that the toleration of the Ro⯑mans was confined to nations or families who followed the practice of their anceſtors; and that in the firſt ages of Chriſtianity their per⯑ſecution [99] of the individuals who departed from the eſtabliſhed religion was neither moderated by pure reaſon, nor inflamed by excluſive zeal. But I only deſire to appeal from the haſty ap⯑prehenſion to the more deliberate judgment of Dr. Watſon himſelf. Should there ſtill remain any difference of opinion between us, I ſhall be ſatisfied, if he will conſider me as a ſincere, though perhaps unſucceſsful, lover of truth, and as a firm friend to civil and eccleſiaſtical freedom.

Far be it from me, or from any faithful Hiſtorian, to impute to reſpectable ſocieties the faults of ſome individual members. Our two Univerſities moſt undoubtedly contain the ſame mixture, and moſt probably the ſame proportions, of zeal and moderation, of reaſon and ſuperſtition. Yet there is much leſs dif⯑ference between the ſmoothneſs of the Ionic and the roughneſs of the Doric dialect, than may be found between the poliſhed ſtyle of Dr. Watſon, and the coarſe language of Mr. Davis, Dr. Chelſum, or Dr. Randolph. The ſecond of theſe Critics, Dr. Chelſum of Chriſt Church, is unwilling that the world ſhould forget that he was the firſt who ſounded to arms, that he was the firſt who furniſhed the antidote to the poiſon, and who, as early as the month of October of the year 1776, publiſhed his Stric⯑tures on the Two laſt Chapters of Mr. Gibbon's [100] Hiſtory. The ſucceſs of a pamphlet, which he modeſtly ſtyles imperfect and ill-digeſted, encouraged him to reſume the controverſy. In the beginning of the preſent year, his Re⯑marks made their ſecond appearance, with ſome alteration of form, and a large increaſe of bulk; and the author, who ſeems to fight un⯑der the protection of two epiſcopal banners, has prefixed, in the front of his volume, his name and titles, which in the former edition he had leſs honourably ſuppreſſed. His confidence is fortified by the alliance and communications of a diſtinguiſhed Writer, Dr. Randolph, &c. who, on a proper occaſion, would, no doubt, be ready to bear as honourable teſtimony to the merit and reputation of Dr. Chelſum. The two friends are indeed ſo happily united by art and nature, that if the author of the Remarks had not pointed out the valuable communica⯑cations of the Margaret Profeſſor, it would have been impoſſible to ſeparate their reſpective property. Writers who poſſeſs any freedom of mind, may be known from each other by the peculiar character of their ſtyle and ſentiments; but the champions who are inliſted in the ſer⯑vice of Authority, commonly wear the uniform of the regiment. Oppreſſed with the ſame yoke, covered with the ſame trappings, they heavily move along, perhaps not with an equal pace, in the ſame beaten track of prejudice and [101] preferment. Yet I ſhould expoſe my own in⯑juſtice, were I abſolutely to confound with Mr. Davis the two Doctors in Divinity, who are joined in one volume. The three Critics appear to be animated by the ſame implacable reſentment againſt the Hiſtorian of the Roman Empire; they are alike diſpoſed to ſupport the ſame opinions by the ſame arts; and if in the language of the two latter the diſregard of politeneſs is ſomewhat leſs groſs and indecent, the difference is not of ſuch a magnitude as to excite in my breaſt any lively ſenſations of gratitude. It was the misfortune of Mr. Davis that he undertook to write before he had read. He ſet out with the ſtock of authorities which he found in my quotations, and boldly ven⯑tured to play his reputation againſt mine. Per⯑haps he may now repent of a loſs which is not eaſily recovered; but if I had not ſurmounted my almoſt inſuperable reluctance to a public diſpute, many a reader might ſtill be dazzled by the vehemence of his aſſertions, and might ſtill believe that Mr. Davis had detected ſe⯑veral wilful and important miſrepreſentations in my Two laſt Chapters. But the confederate Doctors appear to be ſcholars of a higher form and longer experience; they enjoy a certain rank in their academical world; and as their zeal is enlightened by ſome rays of knowledge, ſo their deſire to ruin the credit of their adver⯑ſary [102] is occaſionally checked by the apprehen⯑ſion of injuring their own. Theſe reſtraints, to which Mr. Davis was a ſtranger, have con⯑fined them to a very narrow and humble path of hiſtorical criticiſm; and if I were to correct, according to their wiſhes, all the particular facts againſt which they have advanced any ob⯑jections, theſe corrections, admitted in their fulleſt extent, would hardly furniſh materials for a decent liſt of errata.

The dogmatical part of their work, which in every ſenſe of the word deſerves that appella⯑tion, is ill adapted to engage my attention. I had declined the conſideration of theologi⯑cal arguments, when they were managed by a candid and liberal adverſary; and it would be inconſiſtent enough, if I ſhould have refuſed to draw my ſword in honourable combat againſt the keen and well-tempered weapon of Dr. Watſon, for the ſole purpoſe of encountering the ruſtic cudgel of two ſtaunch and ſturdy Po⯑lemics.

I ſhall not enter any farther into the cha⯑racter and conduct of Cyprian, as I am ſen⯑ſible that if the opinion of Le Clerc, Moſheim, and myſelf, is reprobated by Dr. Chelſum and his ally, the difference muſt ſubſiſt, till we ſhall entertain the ſame notions of moral virtue and Eccleſiaſtical power⁷. If Dr. Randolph [103] will allow that the primitive Clergy received, managed, and diſtributed the tythes, and other charitable donations of the faithful, the diſ⯑pute between us, will be a diſpute of words⁸. I ſhall not amuſe myſelf with proving that the learned Origen muſt have derived from the inſpired authority of the Church his know⯑ledge, not indeed of the authenticity, but of the inſpiration of the four Evangeliſts, two of whom are not in the rank of the Apoſtles⁹. I ſhall ſubmit to the judgment of the Public, whether the Athanaſian Creed is not read and received in the Church of England, and whether the wiſeſt and moſt virtuous of the Pagans¹ believed the Catho⯑lic faith, which [...] in the Athanaſian Creed to be [...] neceſſary for ſalva⯑tion. As little ſhall I think myſelf intereſted in the elaborate diſq [...] [...] which the Author of the [...] [...]lled a great num⯑ber of pages, [...]cerning the famous teſtimony of Joſephus, the paſſages of Irenaeus and The⯑ophilus, which relate to the gift of miracles, and the origin of circumciſion in [...] or in Egypt². If I have rejected, and rejected with ſome contempt, the interpolation which pious fraud has very aukwardly inſerted in the text [104] of Joſephus, I may deem myſelf ſecure behind the ſhield of learned and pious critics (See in particular Le Clerc, in his Ars Critica, part iii. ſect. i. c. 15. and Lardner's Teſtimonies, Vol. i. p. 150, &c.), who have condemned this paſſage: and I think it very natural that Dr. Chelſum ſhould embrace the contrary opi⯑nion, which is not deſtitute of able advocates. The paſſages of Irenaeus and Theophilus were thoroughly ſifted in the controverſy about the duration of Miracles; and as the Works of Dr. Middleton may be found in every library, ſo it is not impoſſible that a diligent ſearch may ſtill diſcover ſome remains of the writings of his adverſaries. In mentioning the confeſſion of the Syrians of Paleſtine, that they had received from Egypt the rite of circumciſion, I had ſim⯑ply alleged the teſtimony of Herodotus, without expreſsly adopting the ſentiment of Marſham. But I had always imagined, that in theſe doubt⯑ful and indifferent queſtions, which have been ſo⯑lemnly argued before the tribunal of the Public, every ſcholar was at liberty to chuſe his ſide, without aſſigning his reaſons; nor can I yet perſuade myſelf, that either Dr. Chelſum, or myſelf, are likely to enforce, by any new argu⯑ments, the opinions which we have reſpectively followed. The only novelty for which I can perceive myſelf indebted to Dr. Chelſum, is the very extraordinary Scepticiſm which he in⯑ſinuates concerning the time of Herodotus, [105] who, according to the chronology of ſome, flou⯑riſhed during the time of the Jewiſh captivity³. Can it be neceſſary to inform a Divine, that the captivity which laſted ſeventy years, ac⯑cording to the prophecy of Jeremiah, was ter⯑minated in the year 536 before Chriſt, by the edict which Cyrus publiſhed in the firſt year of his reign (Jeremiah, xxv. 11, 12. xxix. 10. Ezra, i. 1. &c. Uſher and Prideaux, under the years 606 and 536.)? Can it be neceſſary to in⯑form a man of letters, that Herodotus was fifty-three years old at the commencement of the Peloponneſian war (Aulus Gellius, Noct. Attic. xv. 23. from the Commentaries of Pam⯑phila), and conſequently that he was born in the year before Chriſt 484, fifty-two years after the end of the Jewiſh captivity? As this well atteſted fact is not expoſed to the ſlighteſt doubt or difficulty, I am ſomewhat curious to learn the names of thoſe unknown authors, whoſe chronology Dr. Chelſum has allowed as the ſpecious foundation of a probable hypothe⯑ſis. The Author of the Remarks, does not ſeem indeed to have cultivated, with much care or ſucceſs, the province of literary hiſtory; as a very moderate acquaintance with that uſeful branch of knowledge would have ſaved him from a poſitive miſtake, much leſs excuſable [106] than the doubt which he entertains about the time of Herodotus. He ſtyles Suidas ‘a Heathen writer, who lived about the end of the tenth century⁴.’ I admit the period which he aſſigns to Suidas; and which is well aſcertained by Dr. Bentley (See his Reply to Boyle, p. 22, 23.) We are led to fix this epoch by the chronology which this Heathen writer has deduced from Adam, to the death of the emperor John Zimiſces, A. D. 975: and a crowd of paſſages might be produced, as the unaſwerable evidence of his Chriſtianity. But the moſt unanſwerable of all is the very date, which is not diſputed between us. The philo⯑ſophers who flouriſhed under Juſtinian (See Agathias, l. ii. p. 65, 66.), appear to have been the laſt of the Heathen writers: and the ancient religion of the Greeks was annihilated almoſt four hundred years before the birth of Suidas.

After this animadverſion, which is not in⯑tended either to inſult the failings of my Ad⯑verſary, or to provide a convenient excuſe for my own errors, I ſhall proceed to ſelect two important parts of Dr. Chelſum's Remarks, from which the candid reader may form ſome opinion of the whole. They relate to the mi⯑litary ſervice of the firſt Chriſtians, and to the [107] hiſtorical character of Euſebius; and I ſhall re⯑view them with the leſs reluctance, as it may not be impoſſible to pick up ſomething curious and uſeful even in the barren waſte of contro⯑verſy.