• The first, and most remarkable period of the hiftory of its miraculous propagation, will not certainly, be found, to be concerned in his difquifitions, fince it is not comprehended in his defign. He will be found on examination, to have confidered only, that later period, which commences after the times of the apoftles, and which exhibits to us not the first planting, but the fucceffive increase of Christianity, after it had already taken root, and covered a very extenfive tract of country.

If at any time he ascends higher, he deviates, ftrictly speaking, from his proper fubject.

Our Author has not indeed made any formal declaration, from what period he means to enquire into the progress of the establishment of Chriflianity, because, probably it did not feem neceffary. It must naturally be concluded, that he cannot have meant to enter into any earlier difquifition on the subject, than falls within the immediate compafs of his hiftory.

Refpecting his general plan, he acquaints us, that it is his de fign, in his three firit and introductory chapters, "to defcribe the profperous condition of the empire, and afterwards from the death "of Marcus Antoninus to deduce the most important circumftances "of its decline and fall +." But the death of Marcus Antoninus, happened towards the clofe of the fecond century; and we muit conclude therefore, even in juftice to the hiftorian, that his enquiry, as to its exprefs and immediate defign, cannot be meant to be carried any higher; and is not confequently, at all concerned about the propagation of Chriftianity, in the age of the apostles.

But this age, contains the moft ftriking period, of the hiftory of the propagation, of our religion.-A period, nevertheless fo fhort, that taking its date, before the middle of the first century, it does not extend even to the close of it.

The last apoftolic journey of St. Paul, ended in the year fixtyeight. In the courfe of little more than thirty years after the death of Chrift, his doctrine was fpread, through a great part of the known world.

It was spread from the Euphrates to the Tiber, even in the most populous cities; and the foolishness of preaching overcame the wisdom of famous orators, and philofophers, as the fteady piety of its votaries, overcame alfo the formidable oppofition, of its moft zealous enemies.

And the evidence of this period, it appears then, we are still left in full poffeffion of.

A period of fuch peculiar importance in the annals of Chriftianity, that the judicious advocate of our faith, will ever, principally infift on it. He will however infift alfo, though in a lefs degree, on the fucceeding fingular growth of Chriftianity, amidst the moft cruel perfecutions, and in spite of the most terrifying oppofition. He will not decline, to give an answer, to many even of the most favourite objections, that are fometimes urged, as to the character and conduct of the first Chriflians; nor refuse to meet the enemy of + Ch. 1.

Hh 4

his

his faith, though he has artfully made a diverfion, into a country, which he is lefs properly called on, to defend.

With regard however to the character of the firft Chriftians, the matter may perhaps, fairly be ftated thus.

It is a debt, that we owe certainly to their memories, that we owe to Christianity in general, to keep them untainted, as far as may be, by the breath of flander; and we need not fear on the whole to affirm, that their lives did honour to their profeffion. But if on the other hand, the fentiments of individuals fhould fometimes be found uncharitable and unbecoming; if even their lives should have been difgraceful to their faith, we are in no fort, concerned to defend their caufe, as the cause of Chriftianity itself. We may lament that fo pure a religion fhould fo foon have contracted a mixture of corruption, even during her firft refidence on earth, but we may find comfort in the reflexion, that every material evidence, by which it is fupported, ftill remains in full force; and that the authentic records of her doctrines, may ftill teach us what fruits they ought to have brought forth in others, and fhould yet produce in us.'

Our Author now proceeds to acquaint his Readers that it is by no means his defign to follow Mr. Gibbon through all his researches; that his remarks fhall be confined rather to particular paffages; that it fhall be more efpecially his fubject, to examine diligently into the force of the feveral teftimonies collected, in fupport of his affertions; fince fhould these be found to fail, the fuperftructure built upon them must fall in confequence.

I fhall attend particularly alfo, fays he, to fuch fhort but fignificant reflections, not immediately relating to the fubject of his hif tory, as our Author has occafionally indulged himself in, in the courfe of his general notes. From thefe, perhaps the true temper and defign of our hiftorian may beft be collected, fince in attending to them, we follow him as it were, into his moft fecret receffes, and hear him speaking in his own perfon. For all fuch reflections too, he is more immediately accountable, fhould it be found, that the history itself can by no means be faid to have required them.'

Having now laid before our Readers the Author's defign, we fhall felect a few of his remarks, and refer them for the rest to the work itself, which, from its very nature, is incapable of a regular abstract.

Much ftrefs, he says, is laid by Mr. Gibbon, on his first suppofed cause of the rapid growth of the Chriftian Church.-But it does not feem altogether eafy to explain, our Author fays, how an inflexible and intolerant zeal, fuch as condemned even the moft harmless ceremonies of Paganifm, could invite Pagans, amidst all their prejudices, to embrace Chriftianity. It might indeed, he obferves, produce the only effect Mr. Gibbon has affigned to it, in the recapitulation of his argument; it might fupply Chriftians with that invincible valour, which should keep them firm to their received principles, but it could hardly

be

be of fervice in converting Pagans. This fecondary cause, therefore, he thinks inadequate to its declared effect.

As to the next caufe alleged, more force may certainly be attributed to it; and the friends of Christianity will very readily acknowledge the doctrine of a future life, brought to light by the gospel, to have had its fhare in fpreading the belief of it. But with what propriety, our Author afks, can this be confidered as an human caufe? Is not this diftinguished excellence of the Chriftian revelation to be confidered rather as a part of the convincing evidence of the doctrine itself (p. 450 of Mr. Gib bon's Hift. 1ft Ed.) and as belonging to the very effence of the gofpel? If fo, it is altogether improperly enumerated among the fecondary causes which affifted the truth of the Chriftian religion.

The miraculous powers afcribed to the primitive church, are affigned as a third caufe. And here our Author readily joins iffue with Mr. Gibbon, but at the fame time reminds him, that he gains no ftep towards accounting for the growth of Christianity, from human caufes, while he fets before us, the fuppofed extraordinary interpofition of the hand of God.

Both Seneca and Pliny, Mr. Gibbon tells us, have recorded all the great phenomena of nature, earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipfes, which their indefatigable curiofity could collect. But they have omitted to mention that particular eclipse which is related to have happened at the time of the crucifixion. -Our Author's answer to this is as follows:

Of the three chapters referred to in Seneca, two of them treat only of comets and meteors, and one of earthquakes. But his dif quifitions in this chapter, relate only to fuch earthquakes as had produced their ufual and dreadful effects in deflroying cities, and burying thousands. His attention therefore, cannot properly be fuppofed to have been directed, towards a far different kind of earthquake, which, though it rent the rocks, and divided the vail of the temple in twain, does not appear to have occafioned any fuch damage as might entitle it to a place, among that clafs of earthquakes, which the philofopher, alone confiders. Of eclipfes, the more immediate fubject of the prefent argument, no one, of thefe chapters treats; nor have I been fortunate enough, to difcover, even elfewhere, in the courfe of Seneca's laborious work, any enumeration of eclipfes," collected by his indefatigable curiofity." But in Pliny, we are told "a diftinct chapter is devoted to eclipses of an extraordinary nature, and unusual duration," "who contents himself nevertheless, with defcribing the fingular defect of light, which "followed the murder of Cæfar." As the beft folution of the diffi .culty, I will repeat to you, this important chapter, "devoted" as it is, to eclipses of that kind, among which, it is contended, the per

..P. 518.

ternatural

ternatural darkness, in queftion, ought to have found a place. It will not detain you long.

"There are, fays our philofopher, eclipses of an extraordinary nature, and unufual duration, fuch as that which followed the "murder of Cæfar, and in the war with Antony; when a perpetual "palenefs covered the fun, almoft throughout the whole year t." You have the whole chapter laid before you.

You will now perhaps be furprized at the ferious manner, in which this objection is propofed. It must appear furely from the whole of the chapter, that it was not the philofopher's defign to record all the most remarkable eclipfes, that might be collected, but merely to confirm the general truth of his propofition, fo far, as not to leave it wholly without proof. Why he fhould have fixed particularly on a traditional inftance, relating to Cæfar, will easily be conceived, when it is recollected, how flattering the mention of it might prove, and that "this season of obscurity, had already been celebrated by "most of the poets, and hiftorians of that memorable age 1.".

Had this latter objection, been really formidable, it yet might have been fufficient perhaps, to have remarked, that a mere filence, concerning any fact, in perfons 'at leaft, but accidentally called on, to make mention of it, cannot properly be confidered as of any weight, in oppofition to the pofitive evidence of those, whose express bufinefs it is to record it.

And we might have infifted farther on that "careless indifference," which it is acknowledged, "the most copious and the most "minute of the Pagan writers have fhewn to the affairs of the "Chriftians.”

• But we have no need to recur to fuch folutions, when it ap pears, that of the two philofophers, appealed to, the one has not any where defignedly recorded eclipfes, and the other has only treated of them in fuch a manner, as to give us no reason to expect the mention of the dark nefs of the paflion, in preference, to that of other inftances, which the hiftory of his own nation, fupplied him with.'

Our Author goes on to obferve that what Mr. Gibbon says of the conduct of the Roman government towards the Chriftians, is in reality a laboured apology for it, rather than a difinterested relation of mere facts; that the guilt of the princes and magiftrates of Rome is induftriously palliated; the moft ftubborn proofs occafionally turned afide from their plain and natural fignification, and the perfecuted Chriftians confidered in that light only, in which the most bigoted of their perfecutors would have placed them. It is every where fuppofed, we are told, according to the fpirit of the argument adopted, that the Chriftians were acknowledged criminals, and, without doubt, merited the punishments inflicted on them. On this idea, the

+ P. 158. Fiunt prodigiofi longiores defectus; qualis occifo Cafare, Antoniano bello, totius fere anni pallore perpetuo. Plin. Nat. Hift. lib. II. c. 30. fol. edit. Paris. 1723.'

I. P. 518.'

P. 530.

conduct

conduct of their perfecutors is apologized for, and the indulgent Spirit of Rome and of Polytheism (p. 568) is extolled, either on account of the nature of the punishments they inflicted, or of the occafional ceffation of their cruelties.

Our Author farther obferves upon this fubject, that Mr. Gibbon afcends beyond the proper limits of his hiftory, to ftate to us, the perfecution under Nero. It is eafier, he says, to fee the reason of this digreflion from his fubject, than to justify the propriety of it. The intent, we are told, is, to blot out, if poffible, from the page of history, one diftinguished perfecution of the Chriftians, by the affiftance of a refined conjecture.

Eufebius, according to Mr. Gibbon, frankly confeffes, that he has related whatfoever might redound to the glory, and has fuppreffed all that could tend to the difgrace of religion. This is an heavy accufation, and our Author endeavours to fhew that it is entirely groundless. It is impoffible, he fays, to reconcile the exprefs words of the charge exhibited with any part of the paffages appealed to, and obferves that there is a remarkable agreement between the interpretation which Mr. Gibbon has adopted, and the French tranflation of Monf. Caufin.—He (Eufebius) has related whatever might redound to the glory, and sup. preffed all that could tend to the difgrace of religion, are the words of Mr. Gibbon -Ne voulant donc rien mettre devant les yeux de fideles, que ce qui peut relever l'honneur de notre religion, are the words in which Monf. Caufin, according to his loofe method of interpretation, has chofen to express what forms the fubftance of full three preceding fentences; and has, at the fame time, entirely milled his readers as to the true sense of his Author.

This ftriking fimilarity between the interpretations of Mr. Gibbon and Monf. Caufin, our Author leaves to others to account for. But we must refer our Readers to the REMARKS themselves for what is farther advanced in vindication of the character of Eufebius.

FOREIGN LITERATURE.
(By our CORRESPONDENTS.)

NETHERLAND S.
ART. I.

HE bookfellers at Amfterdam have published a very en

Ttertaining work, which is, at the fame time, far from

being deftitute of inftruction, under the following title: Relation, ou fournal d'un Officier Françoife, &c. i. e. The hiftorical Journal of a French Officer in the Service of the Confederates in Poland, who was taken by the Ruffians, and fent into Siberia. Amferdam, 1776. The Author of this Journal is THESBY DE

5

BELCOUR