Whatever may be the opinion or practice of my adversary, this I apo prehend to be the dealing of a fair and honourable man.

• The historical monuments of the three first centuries of ecclesiastical antiquity are neither very numerous, nor very prolix. From the end of the Acts of the Apostles, to the time when the first Apology of Justin Martyr was presented, there intervened a dark and doubtful period of fourscore years; and, even if the Epistles of Ignatius should be approved by the critic, they could not be very serviceable to the historian. From the middle of the fecond to the beginning of che 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 Epiltles of Cyprian; from a few fencere as of the Martyrs; from some moral or controverfial traits, which indirectly explain the events and manners of the times; from the rare and accidental notice which profanę writers have taken of the Christian feet; from the declamatory Narrative which celebrates the deaths of the persecutors; and from the Ecclefiaftical History of Eusebius, who has preserved some valuable fragments of more early writers. Since the revival of let. ters, these original materials 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 Eufebius ar Tertullian was ac. quired by the first who had an opportunity of quoting it. The learned work of Molheim, de Rebus Chriftianis ante Confiantinum, was printed in the year 1753; and if I were poffeffed of the patience and difingenuity of Mr. Davis, I would engage to find all the ancient testimonies that he has alleged, in the writings of Dodwell or Tille. znont, 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 producing the fame paffages transcribed or transJated at full length in the Annals of Cardinal Baronius. Let not cri. ticism be any longer disgraced by the practice of such unworthy arts. Instead of admitting suspicions as falfe as they are ungenerous, candour will acknowledge, that Mofheim or Dodwell, Tillemont or Baronius, enjoyed the same right, and often were under the same obligation, of quoting the passages which they had read, and which were indispensably requisite to confirm the truth and subtance of their fimilar 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 perse.cution of Diocletian, where a few chapters 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 muft have invented. He is even bold enough (bold is not the proper word) to conceive some hopes of persuading his readers, that an · 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 Orofius, or the Augustan History; and that he was forced to borrow, at second-hand, his quotations from the Theodosian


Code. I cannot profess myself very desirous of Mr. Davis's aco quaintance; but if he will take the trouble of calling at my house any afternoon when I am not at home, my fervant shall thew him my library, which he will find tolerably well furnished with the useful authors, ancient as well as modern, ecclesiastical as well as profane, who have dire&tly supplied me with the materials of my history.'

Towards the close of his answer to Mr. Davis, Mr. Gibbon says, that his Readers must be satisfied, and indeed satiated, with the repeated proofs which he has made of the weight and temper of his adversary's weapons; that they have, in every affault, fallen dead and lifeless to the ground; that they have more than once recoiled, and dangerously wounded, the unskilful hand that had presumed to use them; that he has examined all the misrepresentations and inaccuracies, which even for a moment could perplex the ignorant, or deceive the credulous; that the few imputations which he has neglected, are still more palpably false, or ftill more evidently triling; and that even the friends of Mr. Davis will scarcely continue to ascribe his contempt of that Gentleman to his fear.

The remaining part of Mr. Gibbon's Vindication is employed in considering the criticisms of Mr. Apthorpe, Dr. Watson, Dr. Randolph, Dr. Chelsum, &c.-Being reluctantly drawn into the lists of controversy, says Mr. Gibbon, I shall not retire till I have saluted, either with stern defiance, or gentle courtely, the theological champions who have signalized their ardor to break a lance against the shield of a Pagan adversary.'

He treats Dr. Watson in a very polite and liberal manner; gives his reasons for not entering into a public controversy with a writer of so respectable a character; and, after illustrating a paffage, which, by the misconstruction of his true meaning, seems to have made, he says, an involuntary, but unfavourable impression on the liberal mind of Dr. Watson, proceeds as foldows.

• Far be it from me, or from any faithful Historian, to impute to respectable societies the faults of some individual members. Our two Universities soft undoubtedly contain the same mixture, and most probably the me proportions, of zeal and moderation, of reason and superstition, Yet there is much less difference between the smoothness of the lonic and the roughness of the Doric dialect, than may be found between the polished file of Dr. Watson, and the coarse language of Mr. Davis, Dr. Chellum, or Dr. Randolph. The fecond of these critics, Dr. Chelfum of Christ Church, is unwilling that the world Mould forget that he was the firit who founded to arms, that he was the first who furnished the antidote to the poifon, and who, as early as the month of October of the year 1776, published his Stri&tures on the Two last Chapters of Mr. Gibbon's 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 Remarks made their second appear


[ocr errors]

ance, with some alteration of form, and a large increase of bulk; and the author, who seems to fight under the prorection 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 fupprefied. His confidence is fortified by the alliance and communications of a diflinguished 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 communications of the Margaret Profeffor, it would have been imposible 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 service of Authority, com. monly 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 preferment. Yet I should expofe my own injustice, 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 ani. mated 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 fensa. tions of gratitude. It was the misfortune of Mr. Davis that he un: dertook to write before he had read. He set out with the stock of authorities which he found in my quotations, and boldly ventured to play his reputation against mine. Perhaps he may now repent of a loss which is not easily recovered ; if I had not surmounted my almost insuperable reluctance to a public dispute, many a reader might ftill be dazzled by the vehemence of his assertions, and might still believe that Mr. Davis had detected several 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 adversary is occasionally checked by the apprehenfion of injuring their own. These restraints, to which Mr. Davis was a ftranger, have confined 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 objections, thele correclions, admitted in their fulleit 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 appellation, is ill adapted to engage my attention. I had declined the confideration of theological arguments, when they were managed by a candid and liberal adversary; and it would be inconlistent enough, if I should have refused to draw my sword in horourable combat against the keen and well-tempered weapon of Ür. Watson, for the sole purpose of encoun:ering the rustic cudgels of two llaunch and Iturdy Polemicsa?


2 Vols.

We shall now conclude this article with observing, that it is impoffible for an impartial Reader to peruse Mr. Gibbon's Vindication with any degree of attention, without entertaining a very high idea of his learning, his abilities, and his candor. There are some objections, indeed, to the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Chapters of his History, which have been urged by Dr. Watson, Dr. Chelsum, and others, to which he has given no answer, thinking them, perhaps, of little importance, but which, in our opinion, deserved a distinct, and serious confideration. Art. VI. Elements of General History. Translated from she French of the Abbé Millot, 8vo.

12 s. Boards,

Cadell. 1778. UCH of our Readers as are conversant with foreign litcra.

ture, can be no strangers to the character of Abbé Millot, whose judgment as an Historian, and whose elegance as a Writer, give him a just title to that respect and consideration which he enjoys in the republic of letters.

The work now before us cannot fail of adding considerably to his reputation, and must be particularly acceptable to all those readers, who are desirous of having a general acquaintance with the principal historical events of ancient times, but who have neither leisure nor ability to consult the originals. He has reduced a very extensive subject within narrow limits, confining himself to what is useful and important to men and citizens, without entering into minute enquiries, or tedious details of uninteresting facts, and leaving out those idle fables and filly Atories which are so frequently to be met with in ancient history, and which, while they load the memory, contribute little or nothing towards Atrengthening the understanding, or improving the heart.

Though the Author has the instruction of youth principally in view, yet those of advanced years, and cultivated understandings, will reap very considerable advantage from an attentive perusal of his work; which, with few, very few exceptions indeed, breathes a manly, candid, and libera {pirit; thews the Historian to be an enemy to superstition, bigotry, violence, and tyranny; and a hearty friend to every thing that can improve, adorn, or exalt humanity.

The first volume contains the history of the Egyptians, Chia nese, Assyrians, Babylonians, Phænicians, Hebrews or Jews, Medes, Persians, Scythians, and Celtæ, Indians, Greeks, and Romans, and closes with the history of the second Punic war.The work is divided in such a manner as to make each chapter the subject of one lesson for youth.

The translation, though not elegant, has yet considerable merit, being, in general, very just to the original. Our Readers I 4


may form some judgment of it from the following specia men, which will give them, at the same time, some idea of the Author's taste and manner of writing ; we shall take it from that part of the work which treats of the arts, learning, and science of the Greeks. Part of what he says concerning their philosophy is as follows:

• When the minds of men are set in motion, and they are led by curiosity, emulation, or any other mocive, to dedicate their atten. tion to study, it is impossible that all can pursue the same track; so that if the belles lettres have an invincible attraction for some, there are others no less delighted with the sciences : a passion for acquiring knowledge, and a love of searching after truth, Mew themselves even in the train of the muses. When the pleasures derived from reason begin to be relished, those of the imagination lose their influence upon those serious active minds who prefer the folid to the agreeable, or rather who find what is agreeable in the discovery of truth. Man, society, and nature, present to them an immense field for reflection and enquiry: they embrace philosophy because there alone can they find the gratification of their desires.

• The first philosophers were sages who chiefly dedicated their attention to the study and practice of morality. What could best secure the happiness of individuals or of the state, was the subject of their meditations; their deepest contemplations related to that object; they were unacquainted with vain fubtilties and contentions about words, or with a passion for supporting different systems and fe&is, which produced such numberless errors and extravagancies, when sense was forsaken for intellectual causes, and the love of truth was facrificed to opinion. They afterwards lost themselves in different hypotheses on the origin of the world, the first cause, the fupreme good, &c. &c. Wisdom evaporated in idle reveries, and endless fophiftry. What was said to Thales of Miletus, by a good woman, who saw him fall while contemplating the stars, may be applied to most of the ancient philosophers. How should you know the heavens, said the,, when you do not see what is at your feet!

· The Grecian ph.losophy was divided into two branches, the Ionic and Italian feets ; both of which were subdivided into several others. Thales, the cotemporary of Solon, was at the head of the first, and Pythagoras the chief of the second. I shall only speak as a historian, and mention the most celebrated philosophers, but in a few words, confining myself to what is most interesting.

• Pythagoras deserves to be ranked firit, because he laboured effectually in the cause of morals. It was not in the time of Numa, as -numbers have supposed, but in that of Tarquin the proud, about five hundred and forty years before the christian era, that that great man did so much honour to Greece, and so much good to Italy. He was believed to be a native of Samos, and having heard the reasonings of a philosopher upon the immortality of the foul, immediately devoted himself in a kind of enthusiasm, to the study of philosophy. He travelled into Egypt, Phænicia, Chaldea, and probably as far as the Indies, in quest of knowledge. Though a geometrician and astronomer, he looked upon virtue as the firk of the sciences, and


[ocr errors]
« VorigeDoorgaan »