in insinuation, and very little in argument. It is not so much what is actually said, as what the sagacious reader perceives is intended to be said, that carries conviction along with it, and lays prostrate before it the creeds of many centuries and nations. As much error is employed in a single line as would require a pamphlet to refute and place in its just point of view, while the patient follower of truth has, after much weariness, both to himself and his reader, disentangled some wilfully perplexed knot of controversy and difficulty-he sees the light and careless sceptic far before him, scattering the minute seed of more errors in a day than he will be able to extirpate in a year.

Unless we were to reckon the alleged improbabilities and absurdities which are every where rather insinuated than openly urged against Christianity, throughout the pages of Gibbon, there appear to be only two classes of objections which are distinctly brought forward; the first aims to prove that Christianity cannot be true on account of the vices and follies of professing Christians, and the second class of arguments contends that Christianity owes its rapid diffusion in the early ages to natural and assignable causes. With respect to the first class of his objections, Gibbon has taken the trouble to refute them himself. "The scandal of the pious Christian, and the fallacious triumph of the infidel should cease, as soon as they recollect not only by

whom, but likewise to whom the divine revelation was given. The theologian may indulge the pleasing task of describing religion as she descended from heaven arrayed in her native purity. A more melancholy duty is imposed on the historian. He must discover the inevitable mixture of error and corruption, which she contracted in a long residence upon earth, among a weak and degenerate race of beings." The above observation, though written with a sneer, is not the less true, and it overturns nine-tenths of the arguments, if they may be called so, which Gibbon has directed against Christianity. The vices of professing Christians, it is evident, can in no wise affect the evidences of Christianity, they only prove that those who are guilty of them are not the disciples of a religion which inculcates upon its followers the utmost purity both of life and thought. All the sarcasms of Gibbon, therefore, have not the least tendency to decide whether Christianity is true or not,-they merely affect the characters of a number of individuals. To these individuals Gibbon has dealt most unjustly. He himself is ready to own that the virtues of the primitive Christians were great, when the admission served his purpose of showing that Christianity owed a considerable part of its rapid progress to natural means. "When the Christians of Bithynia were brought before the tribunal of the younger Pliny, they assured the proconsul that, far from

being engaged in any unlawful conspiracy, they were bound by a solemn obligation to abstain from the commission of those crimes which disturb the private or public peace of society,-from theft, robbery, adultery, perjury, and fraud. Near a century afterwards, Tertullian, with an honest pride, could boast that very few Christians had suffered by the hand of the executioner, except on account of their religion. Their serious and sequestered life, averse to the gay luxury of the age, inured them to chastity, temperance, economy, and all the sober and domestic virtues. As the greater number were of some trade or profession, it was incumbent on them, by the strictest integrity, and the fairest dealing, to remove the suspicions which the profane are too apt to conceive against the appearance of sanctity. The contempt of the world exercised them in the habits of humility, meekness, and patience. The more they were persecuted, the more closely they adhered to each other. Their mutual charity and unsuspecting confidence has been remarked by infidels, and was too often abused by perfidious friends."

The attempt to assail the divine origin of Christianity by assigning natural causes, to account in part for its rapid progress, seems founded on very superficial views. Whoever believes God to have been the author of Christianity, of course must also believe that Christianity was adapted to the faculties

and the hopes of the human soul, and that a preparation was made by Providence for its entrance into the world, so that both the mind of man, and the circumstances of the world's affairs, were ready for its reception. Had Gibbon proved that Christianity was greatly favoured by the causes which he assigned, he would have proved nothing to the purposes of infidelity. It is a matter, therefore, merely of curiosity, and of no consequence to the evidences of Christianity, to remark, that several of Gibbon's causes are inadequate to the effects assigned to them.

His first cause is "the inflexible, and, if we may use the expression, the intolerant zeal of the Christians." Now, to assign the intolerant zeal of the weaker party as a cause of success, savours somewhat of folly.

66

The second cause is a valid one, but then it implies the divine origin of Christianity; the doctrine of a future life improved by every additional circumstance which could give weight and efficacy to that important truth.”

The third cause is also a valid one, but it likewise implies the divine origin of Christianity." The miraculous powers ascribed to the primitive church." A pretence to miracles may suit a dominant and absolute priesthood, but would bring on the speedy ruin of a weak cause, and slender party.

The fourth cause assigned is "the pure and austere morals of the Christians." The purity of their morals might indeed gain them respect, but their austerity would scarcely add to the number of their disciples; still the main question ever recurs, whence did the Christians derive their superior purity?

The fifth cause is "the union and discipline of the Christian republic, which gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the heart of the Roman empire." But whence did they derive their union, but from their mutual love, for there was no general government or coercive power to bind them together? whence their discipline, but from the purity of their morals, and the holiness of their rule of life? whence their freedom, but from the disinterestedness of the apostles, who established these spiritual "republics" of Christians throughout the Roman world, instead of making a gain of their converts, and erecting lordships for themselves in the midst of God's heritage?

It is lamentable to reflect, that history has fallen under the dominion of infidelity; that of the three eminent historians, Robertson is barely neutral, and Hume and Gibbon are decidedly hostile to Christianity. Thus, the book of God's providence, and of the manifestations of his wisdom, and longsuffering, and justice, can scarcely be read by the general eye, till it is blurred and partly effaced by