THE CRITICAL REVIEW. For the Month of September, 1778. A few Remarks on the Hiftory of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Relative chiefly to the two Laft Chapters. 8vo. 2s. 6d. Robfon. MR. R. Gibbon, in the two concluding chapters of his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, describes the condition, the numbers, the manners, the fentiments of the first Christians; points out what he apprehends were the fecondary causes of the rapid progrefs of Christianity; and gives us an account of the conduct of the Roman government towards the Chriftians, from the reign of Nero to that of Conftantine. In thefe difquifitions hiftory affords but an imperfect and ambiguous light. The pagan hiftorians have given us little or nothing, relative to Chriftianity, except fome few invidious and unjust reflections on the tenets, and the conduct of its profeffors. The ecclefiaftical writers, coming immediately out of heathenifm, have blended their own mistakes and peculiarities with the doctrines of Chrift; and sometimes have condefcended to make ufe of pious frauds. But fuppofing their representations of Chriftianity were always juft, the circumftances, which ought to be faithfully exhibited, are scattered through a great number of voluminous productions. On this account, it requires a long courfe of theological study, a critical knowledge of the fcriptures, an adequate idea of the nature and genius of our religion, with an uncommon penetration and difcernment, to delineate the characters, the manners, the fentiments, of the firft Chriftians, and to reprefent their religion in its native purity and fimplicity. M VOL. XLVI. Sept. 1778. The The ingenious writer above mentioned is fuppofed to have thrown many falfe and injurious reflections on Christianity, and to have mifreprefented the authors he has had occafion to cite on that fubject. In a publication, which we have lately reviewed, he is charged with a great number of errors and inaccuracies in his quotations; and in this tract the fame accufation is fupported by many additional proofs. Mr. Gibbon having reprefented Paleftine as • a territory fearcely fuperior to Wales, either in fertility or extent,' our author, in his first note, produces the teftimony of Tacitus, Ammianus Marcellinus, and other writers, to prove, that in ancient times it was a beautiful and fertile country. Dr. Shaw afferts, that the Holy Land, were it as well peopled and cultivated, as in former times, would be ftill more fruitful than the very best part of the coast of Syria and Phoenice ; that the land, is, what Mofes calls it, a good land,' ftill capable of affording its neighbours the like fupplies of corn and oil, which it is faid to have done in the time of Solomon.'— On the other hand, it may be observed, in favour of Mr. Gibbon, that Strabo fpeaks of it with contempt, calling the country about Jerufalem a dry and barren region, not worth any one's envy or contention.' Mr. Gibbon ftyles Lactantius an obfcure rhetorician. Our author replies, that Lactantius was fo far from being an obfcure rhetorician, that he taught rhetoric publicly, and with great applaufe, first in Africa, and then at Nicomedia; and that the reputation, which he established at the latter place, gained him fo much effeem with Conftantine, that he took him to his court, and entrusted him with the education of his fon Crifpus. Zofimus, fays Mr. Gibbon, tells a very foolish ftory of Conftantine, caufing all the poft-horfes, which he had used, to be hamftrung. Our author obferves, that, foolish as the thing may feem, Aurelius Viator confirms it: "ad fruftrandos, infequentes, publica jumenta, quaquà iter egerat, interfecit." § 40. Mr. Gibbon fays, Herodotus afferts, that the inhabitants of Palestine, i. e. the Jews, had, by their own confeffion, received the rite of circumcifion from Egypt. Lib. ii. c. 104. Our author answers, that Herodotus is not unjustly accufed of many inaccuracies and fictions; that this paffage in Herodotus carries evident marks of forgery; that Herodotus might have gained proper information concerning the origin of cir 1 Kings v. 11. cumcifion cumcifion from Efdras, Nehemiah, Malachi, and other eminent Jews, if he had been ftudious of the truth, and might have learned, that the Jews never confeffed they had borrowed the notion of it from the Egyptians; that Tacitus looked upon circumcifion as a diftinctive mark, peculiar to the Jews; cir cumcidere, fays that hiftorian, genitalia inftituêre, ut diverfitate nofcantur:' and therefore paid no regard to the vague and indeterminate affertion of Herodotus on this subject. Mr. Gibbon fays: The affurance of a millenium was carefully inculcated by a fucceffion of the fathers from Justin Martyr and Irenæus, down to Lactantius. They all maintain and defcribe that system, as received by the general confent of the Chriftians of their own times. The author of the Remarks replies: That fuch was the private opinion of many pious Chriftians at that time, it is not denied. But it never was received by the general confent of the Chriftians, as may be proved by Juftin's own words: "I have already confeffed to you, O Trypho, that I, and many others of the fame mind with me, do think, that it will come to pass. But I have alfo fignified to you, that many, who are of pure and pious Christian sentiments, do not think fo." Mr. Gibbon says: A noble Grecian had promised Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, that if he could be gratified with the fight of a fingle perfon, who had been actually raised from the dead, he would immediately embrace the Chriftian religion. It is fomewhat remarkable, that the prelate of the first eastern church, however anxious for the converfion of his friend, thought proper to decline this fair and reasonable challenge.' Answer. It is not to be expected, that miracles are to be wrought, whenever they are called for. Even Chrift himself would not fatisfy the Jews, when they called out, "Let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him"... It does not appear from the anfwer, which Theophilus makes to Autolycus, that he was not able to alledge one fingle instance of a perfon raised from the dead, but only that he did not think it neceffary to fatisfy the vain curiofity of Autolycus in a matter, which was not likely to have any good effect upon him.' Theophilus lived about the year 170 or 180. And whether any person in that age could raise a dead man to life or not, may admit of fome difpute. It may likewife be faid, that what was not neceffary' in this cafe, might be thought unneceffary every other. Our author adds: " we believe a Juftin, an Origen, a Tertullian, when they relate miracles, which were wrought in their days; and fhall we, for the fake of an ar in M 2 bitrary bitrary hypothefis, give the lie to a Bafil, a Chryfoftom, an Ambrofe, an Auguftine, illuftrious fathers, who flourished after the converfion of the Roman empire, and all unanimously bear teftimony to the continuance of many miracles in their time? On this occafion it may be obferved, that we cannot pretend to vindicate all the miracles, which have been attefted by illuftrious fathers.' Tertullian, fays Mr. Gibbon, with an honeft pride, could boaft, that very few Christians had fuffered by the hands of the executioner, except on account of their religion.' Answer: • His words are, not one: nemo illic Chriftianus. Apol. $44. Mr. Gibbon cenfüres the Chriftians for their inactivity. The author of the Remarks replies: As Chriftians they could not attend the fenate, as it was always held in a temple or confecrated place; and every fenator before he entered on bufinefs dropt fome wine and frankincenfe on the altar. As Chrif tians they could not partake of their entertainments, which were concluded with libations. As Chriftians they might feruple to attend at their marriages; for the nuptial ceremonies always commenced by the taking of aufpices, and fuch kind of fuperftitious rites, and were celebrated by idolatrous hymns and obscene verfes. As Chriftians they could not attend at their funerals; for the pile itself was an altar, the flames were fed with the blood of victims, and all the affiftants were fprinkled with luftral water. In fine, as Christians they were obliged to abfent themselves from the public feftivals. For the dangerous temptations, which on every fide lurked in ambush to surprise the unguarded believer, affailed him with redoubled violence on thofe folemn days.. These things impartially confidered, we cannot in justice condemn them for declining any intercourfe in fuch affairs, as would have evidently been a violation of their duty. Where this did not interfere, they were always ready to ferve the pagans in every fhape. " Proinde, fays Juftin Martyr, nos folum Deum adoramus, & vobis in rebus aliis læti infervimus. Apol. p. 64. Mr. Gibbon has obferved, that the paffage concerning Jefus Chrift, was inferted into the text of Jofephus, between the time of Origen and that of Eufebius, and may furnish an example of no vulgar forgery.' As this is a point, which has been frequently and warmly disputed, we shall give our readers the greatest part of what this writer has advanced in defence of this celebrated paffage. In order that we may clear up this matter, it will be proper to lay before the reader the whole paffage: "At the fame time there to us. t there was one Jefus, a wife man, if at leaft a man he may be called he was a great worker of miracles, and a teacher of thofe that were curious and defirous to learn the truth, and he had a great many followers, both Jews and Gentiles. This was the Chrift that was accufed by the princes and great men of our nation. Pilate delivered him up to the cross, and all this notwithstanding, thofe that loved him at firft, did not forfake him. He was feen alive again the third day after his crucifixion, as had been foretold by feveral prophets: with other wonders that he wrought, and there are a fort of people that to this day bear the name of Chriftians, as owning him for their head." (Jofephus's Antiquities, as tranflated by fir Rog. L'Etrange, vol. . b. 18. p. 1031, O&t. edit.) This paffage is cited by Eufebius, who lived in the third century, and Jofephus died in the fecond. It is to be found alfo in St. Jerome, in Sophronius, in Ruffinus, in Ifidore of Damietta, in Cedrenus, in Nicephorus Califtes, in Suidas, &c. who all alledge it as authentic. Thefe authors had all of them particular copies, feeing that they wrote in different places and different ages: fome in Greece, others in Palestine, and others in Egypt. Their copies however were uniform, as well as thofe which have been tranfmitted What objections can be made to fuch unanimous tef timony Some fay Eufebius forged it: if fo, he was the most errant blunderer and bare-faced impoftor that ever exifted, to give for authentic a piece that he forged himself. But to whom did he attribute it? To an unknown and obfcure author? No! On the contrary he afcribed it to an hiftorian uniwerfally known, and whofe writings had been depofited in the imperial library. Moreover, it is not in one place only, but in feveral that he cites this paffage without apprehending any detection either from Jew or Greek, who had the works of Jofephus conftantly in their hands. Some there are who acquit Eufebius of any defigned impofition fo nnworthy of an hiftorian, yet take another method to invalidate the text. They agree that he had read it in fome author, although not in Jofephus. And what corroborates their opinion is, that Photius, fpeaking of Caius, a priest of Rome, who lived in the third century, fays that he was the author of a work, which fome attributed to Jofephus, and in which mention was made of Jefus Chrift conformable to the dignity of the fubject. Eufebius therefore might have been guilty of an involuntary mistake, and according to the popular notion, which was then current, attribute the text of this priest to the Jewish hiftorian. The allegation however of a poffibility is no proof. It ftill remains to fhew clearly that this text is not in Jofephus, but in fome other author. Now it is notorious that no writer, either ancient or modern. ever maintained that he faw it in any work whatever, otherwise than in, or borrowed from Jofephus. Moreover Caius never wrote any treatife called the Jewish Antiquities. The title prefixed to his work was the History of the Universe, and Photius M 3 does |