Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

guided to the proper spot in the commentaries of Grotius, Valefius or Godefroy, by the more accurate citation of their original author. 5. The idea which I was defirous of communicating to the reader, was fometimes the general refult of the author or treatife that I had quoted; nor was it poffible to confine, within the narrow limits of a particular reference, the fenfe or fpirit which was mingled with he whole mafs. Thefe motives are either laudable or at least innocent. In two of these exceptions my ordinary mode of citation was fuperfluous; in the other three it was impracticable.'

The author illuftrates thefe remarks by fome examples, which for the fake of brevity we are obliged to omit.

The following paragraph is worthy of notice, as it not only gives a proper account of a celebrated work, intitled, Thefaurus Temporum Eufebii Pamphili, interprete Hieronymo, &c. bat completely vindicates Mr. Gibbon against the accufation of his adverfary.

A grofs blunder is imputed to me by this polite antagonist, for quoting under the name of Jerom, the chronicle which I ought to have defcribed as the work and property of Eufebius; and Mr. Davis kindly points out the occafion of my blunder, that it was the confequence of my looking no farther than Dodwell for this remark, and of not rightly understanding his reference. Perhaps the hiftorian of the Roman empire may be credited, when he affirms, that he frequently confulted a Latin. chronicle of the affairs of that empire; and he may the fooner be credited, if he fhews that he knows fomething more of this chronicle befides the name and the title-page.

Mr. Davis, who talks fo familiarly of the Chronicle of Eufebius, will be furprised to hear that the Greek original no longer exifts. Some chronological fragments, which had fucceffively paffed through the hands of Africanus and Eufebius, are ftill extant, though in a very corrupt and mutilated state, in the compilations of Syncellus and Cedrepus. They have been collected, and difpofed by the labour and ingenuity of Jofeph Scaliger; but that proud critic, always ready to applaud his own fuccefs, did not flatter himfelf, that he had reftored the hundredth part of the genuine Chronicle of Eufebius. "Ex eo (Syncello) omnia Eufebiana excerpfimus quæ quidem deprehendere potuimus; quæ, quanquam ne centefima quidem pars eorum effe videtur quæ ab Eufebio relicta funt, aliquod tamen juftum volumen explere poffunt." (Jof. Scaliger Animadverfiones in Græca Eufebii in Thefauro Temporum, p. 401. Amftelod. 1658. While the chronicle of Eufebius was perfect and entire, the fecond book was tranflated into Latin by Jerom, with the freedom, or rather licence, which that voluminous author, as well as his friend or enemy Rufinus, always affumed. Plurima in vertendo mutat, infulcit, præterit," fays Scaliger himfelf, in the Prolegomena, p. 22. In the perfecution of Aurelian, which

[ocr errors]

bas

[ocr errors]

has fo much offended Mr. Davis, we are able to distinguish the work of Eufebius from that of Jerom, by comparing the expreffions of the Ecclefiaftical History with thofe of the Chronicle. The former affirms, that, towards the end of his reign, Aurelian was moved by fome councils to excite a perfecution against the Chriftians; that his defign occafioned a great and general rumour; but that when the letters were prepared, and as it were figned, divine juftice difmiffed him from the world. Hon τισι βολαίς ως αν διωγμον καθ' ἡμων εγείρειν ανεκινείτο. πολύς τε ην 66 Пара πασι περὶ τετε λογος. ' μελλοντα δε ηδη και σχεδόν είπειν τας καθ ̓ ἡμων γραμμασιν υποσημειωμενον, θεια μετεισιν δίκη. Eufeb. Hif. Ecclef. 1. vii. c. 30. Whereas the Chronicle relates, that Aurelian was killed after he had excited or moved a perfecution against the Chriftians, "cum adverfum nos perfecutionem moviffet."

From this manifeft difference I affume a right to affert ; firft, the expreffion of the chronicle of Jerom, which is always proper, became in this inftance neceffary; and fecondly, that the language of the fathers is fo ambiguous and incorrect, that we are at a loss how to determine how far Aurelian had carried his intention, before he was affaffinated. I have neither perverted the fact, nor have I been guilty of a grofs blunder.'

An obfervation, which has been already mentioned, is very properly illuftrated by Mr. Gibbon in the following extract :

• After a fhort defcription of the unworthy conduct of those apoftates who, in a time of perfecution, deferted the faith of Chrift, I produced the evidence of a Pagan proconful, and of two Chriftian bishops, Pliny, Dionyfius of Alexandria, and Cyprian. And here the unforgiving critic remarks, " that Pliny has not particularized that difference of conduct (in the different apoftates) which Mr. Gibbon here defcribes: yet his name ftands at the head of those authors whom he has cited on the occafion. It is allowed indeed that this diftin&tion is made by the other authors; but as Pliny, the first referred to by Mr. Gibbon, gives him no cause or reafon to use them," (I cannot help Mr. Davis's bad English)" it is certainly very reprehenfible in our author, thus to confound their teftimony, and to make a needlefs and improper reference."

A criticism of this fort can only tend to expofe Mr. Davis's total ignorance of hiftorical compofition. The writer who afpires to the name of hiftorian, is obliged to confult a variety of original teftimonies, each of which, taken feparately, is perhaps imperfect and partial. By a judicious re-union and arrangement of thefe difperfed materials, he endeavours to form a confiftent and interefting narrative. Nothing ought to be inferted which is not proved by fome one of the witneffes; but their evidence must be fo intimately blended together, that as it is unreafonable to expect that each of them fhould vouch for the whole, fo it would be impoffible to define the boundaries of their refpective property. Neither Pliny, nor Dionyfius, nor Cyprian,

men

mention all the circumftances and diftinctions of the conduct of the Chriftian apoftates; but if any of them was withdrawn, the account which I have given would, in fome inftance, be defective.

Thus much I thought neceffary to fay, as feveral of the fubfequent misreprefentations of Orofius, of Bayle, of Fabricius, of Gregory of Tours, &c. which provoked the fury of Mr. Davis, are derived only from the ignorance of this common historical principle.'

Having, in a variety of inftances, repelled the furious, and, as he calls them, the feeble attacks of Mr. Davis, the author thus proceeds to the reft of his antagonists.

If I am not mistaken, Mr. Apthorpe was the first who announced to the public his intention of examining the interefting fubject which I had treated in the two laft chapters of my Hiftory. The multitude of collateral and acceffary ideas which prefented themselves to the author infenfibly fwelled the bulk of his papers to the fize of a large volume in octavo; the publication was delayed many months beyond the time of the first advertisement; and when Mr. Apthorpe's Letters appeared, I was furprised to find, that I had fcarcely any intereft or concern in their contents. They are filled with general obfervations on the study of history, with a large and ufeful catalogue of hiftorians, and with a variety of reflections, moral and religious, all preparatory to the direct and formal confideration of my two laft chapters, which Mr. Apthorpe feems to referve for the fubject of a fecond volume. I fincerely refpect the learning, the piety, and the candour of this gentleman, and must confider it as a mark of his esteem, that he has thought proper to begin his approaches at fo great a diftance from the fortifications which he defigned to attack.

When Dr. Watfon gave to the public his Apology for Christianity, in a series of letters, he addreffed them to the author of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, with a juft confidence that he had confidered this important object in a manner not unworthy of his antagonist or of himself. Dr. Watfon's mode of thinking bears a liberal and philofophical caft; his thoughts are expreffed with fpirit, and that fpirit is always tempered by politeness and moderation. Such is the man whom I hould be happy to call my friend, and whom I should not blush to call my antagonist. But the fame motives which might tempt me to accept, or even to folicit, a private and amicable conference, diffuaded me from entering into a public controverfy with a writer of fo refpectable a character; and I embraced the earliest opportunity of expreffing to Dr. Watfon himself, how fincerely I agreed with him in thinking, "that as the world is now poffeffed of the opinion of us both upon the fubject in queftion, it may be perhaps as proper for us both to leave it in

this state."

• The

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The author vindicates himself againft this polite and ingenuous adverfary, in one or two inftances, and then goes on in this manner :

Far be it from me, or from any faithful hiftorian, to impute to refpectable focieties the faults of fome individual members. Our two univerfities moft undoubtedly contain the fame mixture, and most probably the fame proportions, of zeal and moderation, of reafon and fuperftition. Yet there is much less difference between the fmoothnefs of the lonic and the roughnefs of the Doric dialect, than may be found between the polifhed ftyle of Dr. Watson, and the coarfe language of Mr. Davis, Dr. Chelfum, or Dr. Randolph. The fecond of thefe critics, Dr. Chelfum of Chrift Church, is unwilling that the world fhould forget that he was the first 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 Strictures on the Two laft Chapters of Mr. Gibbon's Hiftory, The fuccefs of a pamphlet, which he modeftly ftyles imperfect and ill-digefted, encouraged him to refume the controverfy. In the beginning of the prefent year, his Remarks made their fecond appearance, with fome alteration of form, and a large increase of bulk: and the author, who feems to fight under the protection of two epifcopal banners, has prefixed, in the front of his volume, his name and titles, which in the former edition he had lefs honourably fuppreffed. His confidence is fortified by the alliance and communications of a diftinguished writer, Dr. Randolph, &c. who, on a proper occafion, would, no doubt, be ready to bear as honourable teftimony to the merit and reputation of Dr. Chelfum. The two friends are indeed fo 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 impoffible to feparate their refpective property. Writers who poffefs any freedom of mind, may be known from each other by the peculiar character of their style and fentiments: but the champions who are inlifted in the fervice of authority, commonly wear the uniform of the regiment. Oppreffed with the fame yoke, covered with the fame trappings, they heavily move along, perhaps not with an equal pace, in the fame beaten track of prejudice and preferment. Yet I fhould expofe my own injuflice, were I abfolutely 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 fame implacable refentment against the hiftorian of the Roman empire: they are alike difpofed to fupport the fame opinions by the fame arts; and if in the language of the two latter the difregard of politenefs is fomewhat lefs grofs and indecent, the difference is not of fuch a magnitude as to excite in my breast any lively fenfations of gratitude. It was the misfortune of Mr. Davis that he undertook to write before he had read. He fet out with the ftock of authorities which he found

[ocr errors]

in my quotations, and boldly ventured to play his reputation. against mine. Perhaps he may now repent of a lofs which is not eafily recovered; but if I had not furmounted my almoft infuperable reluctance to a public difpute, many a reader might ftill be dazzled by the vehemence of his affertions, and might ftill believe that Mr. Davis had detected feveral wilful and important mifreprefentations in my two laft Chapters. But the confederate doctors appear to be fcholars of a higher form and longer experience; they enjoy a certain rank in their academical world; and as their zeal is enlightened by fome rays of knowlege, fo their defire to ruin the credit of their adversary is occafionally 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, these corrections, admitted in their fullest extent, would hardly furnish materials for a decent list of errata.'

In a poftfcript the author takes notice of an anonymous pamphlet, which was published against his History in the courfe of the laft fummer, under the title of A Few Remarks, &c. by a Gentleman. But his animadverfions are confined to a few pages; as he obferves, that the heavy mift of prejudice and fuperftition, which has in a great meafure been difpelled by the free enquiries of the prefent age, ftill continue to involve the mind of his adverfary; that he fondly embraces thole phantoms (for inftance an imaginary Pilate) which can fcarcely find a fhelter in the gloom of an Italian convent; and that the refentment which he points against him, might frequently be extended to the most enlightened of the proteftant, or, in his opinion, of the heretical critics.'

The admirers of our excellent historian cannot fail of being extremely pleased with this masterly Vindication.

FOREIGN

ARTICLES.

Corn. Wilh. de Rhoer, Iti et Advocati Groningo Omland. Differtationes de Effectu Religionis Chriftianæ in Jurifprudentiam Romanam. Fafciculus Primus. 8vo. Groningæ.

[ocr errors]

THAT Chriftianity has influenced the Roman legiflation, is generally known; but to take an accurate furvey of the caufes and effects of this influence, requires not only an intimate acquaintance with the legal polity of the Roman ftate, and with history, but alfo a long and laborious inveftigation. This task has been fuccessfully performed in the prefent work, whofe author has blended the fruits of a well-digested and extensive erudition, with the refult of profound meditation. He accordingly deserves the attention of lawyers, hiftorians, and politicians.

VOL. XLVII. Jan. 1779.

F

He

« ForrigeFortsæt »