hens. They refused not to serve in the armies of the Roman empire; they appealed to Heathen magistrates, and submitted respectfully to their decision; the husband was often a Heathen, and the wife a Christian; or, again, the husband a Christian, and the wife a Heathen. These are facts so universally known and believed, that we need not quote authorities in proof of them.

This respectable writer appears therefore not to have stated the facts which he produces under this head with sufficient ingenuity; and he has taken care to exaggerate and improve those which he thinks useful to his purpose with all the dazzling and delusive colours of eloquence. But had the zeal of the first Christians been so intolerant as he represents it, it must have been highly unfavourable to the propagation of their religion: all their wishes to make converts would, in that case, have been counteracted by their unwillingness to mix in the ordinary intercourse of life, with those who were to be converted. Their zeal and the liberal spirit of their religion, were indeed secondary causes which contributed to its propagation: but their zeal was by no means so ridiculously intolerant as this writer would have us believe; if it had, it must have produced effects directly opposite to those which he ascribes to it.

In illustrating the influence of the second of these secondary causes to which he attributes the propagation of Christianity, Mr Gibbon displays no less ingenuity than in tracing the nature and the effects of the first. The doctrine of a future life, improved by every additional circumstance which can give weight and efficacy to that important truth, makes a conspicuous figure in the Christian system; and it is a doctrine highly flattering to the natural hopes and wishes of the human heart.

Though the Heathen philosophers were not unacquainted with this doctrine; yet to them the spirituality of the human soul, its capacity of existence in a separate state from the body, its immortality, and its prospect of lasting happiness in a future life, rather appeared things possible and desirable, than truths fully established upon solid grounds. These doctrines, Mr Gibbon would persuade us, had no influence on the the moral sentiments and general conduct of the Heathens. Even the philosophers, who amused themselves with displaying their eloquence and ingenuity on those splendid themes, did not allow them to influence the tenor of their lives. The great body of the people, who were occupied in pursuits very different from the speculations of philosophy, and were unacquainted with the questions discussed in the schools, were scarce ever at pains to reflect whether they conflicted of a material and spiritual part, or whether their existence was to be prolonged beyond the term of the present life; and they could not regulate their lives by principles which they did not know.

In the popular superstition of the Greeks and Romans, the doctrine of a future state was not omitted. Mankind were not only flattered with the hopes of continuing to exist beyond the term of the present life; but different conditions of existence were promised or threatened, in which retributions for their conduct in human life were to be enjoyed or suffered. Some were exalted to heaven, and associated with the gods; others were rewarded with less illustrious honours, and a more moderate state of happiness, in Elysium; and those, again, who by their conduct in life had not merited rewards, but punishments, were consigned to Tartarus. Such were the ideas of a future state which made a part of the popular superstition of the Greeks and Romans. But they produced only a very faint impression on the minds of those among whom they prevailed. They were not truths supported by evidence; they were not even plausible; they were a tissue of absurdities. They had not therefore a more powerful influence on the morals, than the more refined speculations of the philosophers.

Even the Jews, whose religion and legislature were communicated from heaven, were in general, till within a very short time before the propagation of the gospel, as imperfectly acquainted with the doctrine of a future state as the Greeks and Romans. This doctrine made no part of the law of Moses. It is but darkly and doubtfully intimated through the other parts of the Old Testament. Those among the Jews who treated the sacred Scriptures with the highest reverence, always denied that such a doctrine could be deduced from any thing which they taught; and maintained that death is the final dissolution of man.

The rude tribes who inhabited ancient Gaul, and some other nations not more civilized than they, entertained ideas of a future life, much clearer than those of the Greeks, the Romans, or the Jews.

Christianity, however, explained and inculcated the truth of this doctrine in all its splendour and all its dignity. It exhibited an alluring, yet not absurd, view of the happiness of a future life. It conferred new horrors on the place of punishment, and added new severity to the tortures to be inflicted, in another world. The authority on which it taught those doctrines, and displayed these views, was such as to silence inquiry and doubt, and to command implicit belief. What added to the influence of the doctrine of a future state of existence, thus explained and inculcated, was, that the first Christians confidently prophesied and sincerely believed that the end of the world, the consummation of all things, was fast approaching, and that the generation then present should live to witness that awful event. Another circumstance which contributed to render the same doctrine so favourable to the propagation of Christianity was that the first Christians dealt damnation without remorse, and almost without making any exceptions, on all who died in the belief of the absurdities of Heathen superstition. Thus taught, and improved with these additional and heightened circumstances, this doctrine, partly by presenting alluring prospects and exciting pleasing hopes, partly by working upon the fears of the human heart with representations of terror, operated in the most powerful manner in extending the influence of the Christian faith.

Here, too, facts are rather exaggerated, and the observations scarce fairly deduced. It must be confessed in any that the speculations of the Heathen philosophers did not fully and undeniably establish the doctrine of the immortality of the human soul; nor can we presume to assert, in contradiction to Mr Gibbon, that their arguments could impress such a conviction of this truth as might influence in a very strong degree the moral sentiments and conduct. They must, however, have produced some influence on these. Some of the most illustrious among the Heathen philosophers appear to have been so strongly impressed with the belief of the soul’s immortality, and of a future state of retribution, that their general conduct was constantly and in a high degree influenced by that belief. Plato and Socrates are eminent and well known instances. And if, in such instances as these, the belief of these truths produced such conspicuous effects, it might be fairly inferred, though we had no further evidence, that those characters were far from being singular in this respect. It is a truth acknowledged as unquestionable in the history of arts and sciences, that wherever any one person has cultivated these with extraordinary success, some among his contemporaries will always be found to have rivalled his excellence, and a number of them to have been engaged in the same pursuits. On this occasion we may venture, without hesitation, to reason upon the same principles. When the belief of the immortality of the human soul produced such illustrious patterns of virtue as a Plato and a Socrates, it must certainly have influenced the moral sentiments and conduct of many others, although in an inferior degree. We speculate, we doubt, concerning the truth of many doctrines of Christianity; many who profess that they believe them, make this profession only because they have never considered seriously whether they be true or false. But, notwithstanding this, these truths still exert a powerful influence on the sentiments and manners of society in general. Thus, also, it appears that the doctrines of ancient philosophy concerning a future life, and even the notions concerning Olympus, Elysium, and Tartarus, which made a part of the popular superstition, did produce a certain influence on the sentiments and manners of the Heathens in general. That influence was often indeed inconsiderable, and not always happy; but still it was somewhat greater than Mr Gibbon seems willing to allow. Christians have been sometimes at pains to exaggerate the absurdities of Pagan superstition, in order that the advantages of Christianity might acquire new value from being contrasted with it. Here we find one who is rather disposed to be the enemy of Christianity, displaying ing, and even exaggerating, these absurdities for a very different purpose. But the truth may be safely admitted; it is only when exaggerated that it can serve any purpose inimical to the sacred authority of our holy religion. Mr Gibbon certainly represents the religious doctrine of the ancient Gauls, in respect to the immortality of the human soul and a future state, in too favourable a light. It is only because the whole system of superstition which prevailed among the barbarians is so imperfectly known, that it has been imagined to consist of more sublime doctrines than those of the popular superstition of the Greeks and Romans. The evidence which Mr Gibbon adduces in proof of what he asserts concerning these opinions of the ancient Gauls, is partial, and far from satisfactory. They did indeed assert and believe the soul to be immortal; but this doctrine was blended among a number of absurdities much greater than those which characterize the popular religion of the Greeks and Romans. The latter was the superstition of a civilized people, among whom reason was unfolded and improved by cultivation, and whose manners were polished and liberal; the former was that of barbarians, among whom reason was, as it were, in its infancy, and who were strangers to the improvements of civilization. When hasty observers found that those barbarians were not absolutely strangers to the idea of immortality, they were moved to undue admiration; their surprise at finding what they had not expected, confounded their understanding, and led them to misconceive and misrepresent. What we ought to ascribe to the savage ferocity of the character of those rude tribes, has been attributed by mistake to the influence of their belief of a future state.

In the law of Moses, it must be allowed, that this doctrine is not particularly explained nor earnestly inculcated. The author of the Divine Legation of Moses, &c., has founded upon this fact an ingenious theory, which we shall elsewhere have occasion to examine. The reasons why this doctrine was not more fully explained to the Jews, we cannot pretend to assign, at least in this place; yet we cannot help thinking, that it was more generally known among the Jews than Mr Gibbon and the author of the Divine Legation are willing to allow. Though it be not strongly inculcated in their code of laws, yet there is some reason to think that it was known and generally prevalent among them long before the Babylonish captivity; even in different passages in the writings of Moses, it is mentioned or alluded to in an unequivocal manner. In the history of the patriarchs, it appears that this doctrine was known to them; it appears to have had a strong influence on the mind of Moses himself. Was David, was Solomon, a stranger to this doctrine? We cannot here descend to very minute particulars; but surely all the efforts of ingenuity must be insufficient to torture the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament, so as to prove that they contain nothing concerning the doctrine of a future state anywhere but in the writings of the later prophets, and that even in these it is only darkly intimated. Were the Jews, in the earlier part of their history, so totally secluded from all intercourse with other nations, that a doctrine of so much importance, more or less known to all around, could not be communicated to them? The Pharisees did admit traditions, and set upon them an undue value; yet they appear to have been considered as the most orthodox of the different sects which prevailed among the Jews: the Sadducees were rather regarded as innovators.

But though we are of opinion, that this ingenious writer allows to the doctrine of the Greek and Roman philosophers, concerning the immortality of the human soul, as well as the notices concerning a future state, which made a part of the popular superstitions of those nations, less influence on the moral sentiments and conduct of mankind than what they really exerted; though we cannot agree with him in allowing the ideas of the immortality of the soul and of a future state, which were entertained by the Gauls and some other rude nations, to have been much superior in their nature, or much happier in their influence, than those of the Greeks and Romans; and though, in consequence of reading the Old Testament, we are disposed to think that the Jews knew somewhat more concerning the immortality of the human soul, and concerning the future state in which human beings are destined to exist, than Mr Gibbon represents them to have known: yet still we are very sensible, and very well pleased to admit, that "life and immortality were brought to light through the gospel."

The doctrine of a future life, as it was preached by the first Christians, was established on a more solid basis than that on which it had been before maintained; was freed from every absurdity; and was, in short, so much improved, that its influence, which, as it was explained by Heathen poets and philosophers, must be confessed to have been in many instances doubtful, now became favourable only to the interests of piety and virtue, and to them in a very high degree. It undoubtedly contributed to the successful propagation of Christianity; for it was calculated to attract and please both the speculative philosopher and the simple unenlightened votary of the vulgar superstition. The views which it exhibited were distinct; and all was plausible and rational, and demonstrated by the fullest evidence. But the happiness which it promised was of a less sensual nature than the enjoyments which the Heathens expected on Olympus or in Elysium; and would therefore appear less alluring to those who were not very capable of refined ideas, or preferred the gratifications of the senses in the present life to every other species of good. If the first Christians rejoiced in the hope of beholding all the votaries of Pagan idolatry afflicted with the torments of hell in a future state, and boasted of these hopes with inhuman exultation, they would in all probability rather irritate than alarm those whom they sought to convert from that superstition: the Heathens would be moved to regard with indignant scorn the preacher who pretended that those whom they venerated as gods, heroes, and wise men, were condemned to a state of unspeakable and lasting torment. Would not every feeling of the heart revolt against the idea, that a parent, a child, a husband, a wife, a friend, a lover, or a mistress, but lately lost, and still lamented, was consigned to eternal torments for actions and opinions which they had deemed highly agreeable to superior powers?

We may conclude, then, with respect to the influence of this secondary cause in promoting the propagation of Christianity, that the circumstances of the Heathen CHR

Heathen world were less favourable to that influence than Mr Gibbon pretends; that the means by which he represents the primitive Christians, as improving its efficacy, were some of them not employed, and others rather likely to weaken than to strengthen it; and that therefore more is attributed to the operation of this cause than it could possibly produce.

The third cause, the miraculous powers of the primitive church, is with good reason represented as having conduced very often to the conviction of infidels. Mr Gibbon's reasonings under this head are, That numerous miraculous works of the most extraordinary kind were intentionally performed by the first Christians; that, however, from the difficulty of fixing the period at which miraculous powers ceased to be communicated to the Christian church; and from some other circumstances, there is reason to suspect them to have been merely the pretences of imposture; but this (to use a phrase of his own) is only darkly intimated; and, lastly, that the Heathens having been happily prepared to receive them as real by the many wonders nearly of a similar nature to which they were accustomed in their former superstition, the miracles which the first Christians employed to give a sanction to their doctrines, contributed in the most effectual manner to the propagation of Christianity.

In reply to what is here advanced, it may be suggested, that the miracles recorded in the New Testament, as having been performed by the first Christians when engaged in propagating their religion, as well as a number of others recorded by the Fathers, are established as true, upon the most indubitable evidence which human testimony can afford for any fact. Mr Hume, who was too fond of employing his ingenuity in undermining truths generally received, has endeavoured to prove, that no human testimony, however strong and unexceptionable, can afford sufficient evidence of the reality of a miracle. But his reasonings on this head, which once excited doubt and wonder, have been since completely refuted; and mankind still continue to acknowledge, that though we are all liable to mistakes and capable of deceit, yet human testimony may afford the most convincing evidence of the most extraordinary and even supernatural facts.

The reader will not expect us to enter, in this place, into a particular examination of the miracles of our Saviour and his apostles, and the primitive church. An inquiry into these will be a capital object in another part of this work (THEOLOGY.) We may here consider it as an undeniable and a generally acknowledged fact, that a certain part of those miracles were real. Such as were real undoubtedly contributed, in a very eminent manner, to the propagation of Christianity; but they are not to be ranked among the natural and secondary causes.

It is difficult to distinguish at what period miraculous gifts ceased to be conferred on the members of the primitive church; yet we may distinguish, if we take pains to inquire with minute attention, at what period the evidence ceases to be satisfactory. We can also, by considering the circumstances of the church through the several stages of its history, form some judgment concerning the period during which the gifts of prophecy, and speaking with tongues, and working miracles, were most necessary to Christians to enable them to assert the truth and dignity of their religion.

The Heathens were no strangers to pretended miracles and prophecies, and other seeming interpositions of superior beings, disturbing the ordinary course of nature and of human affairs; but the miracles to which they were familiarized had been so often detected to be tricks of imposture or pretences of mad enthusiasm, that, instead of being prepared to witness or to receive accounts of new miracles with easy credulity, they must have been in general disposed to view them with jealousy and suspicion. Besides, the miracles to which they had been accustomed, and those performed by the apostles and the first preachers of Christianity, were directly contradictory; and therefore the one could receive no affluence from the other.

Yet we must acknowledge, notwithstanding what we have above advanced, that as disagreements with respect to the principles and institutions of their religion very early arose among Christians; so they likewise fought to extend its influence, at a very early period, by the use of pious frauds. Pious frauds, too, appear to have sometimes served the immediate purposes for which they were employed, though eventually they have been highly injurious to the cause of Christianity.

We conclude, then, that Christianity was indebted to the influence of miracles in a considerable degree for its propagation; but that the real miracles of our Saviour and his apostles, &c., were not among the secondary causes of its success: that the Heathens who were to be converted were not very happily prepared for receiving the miracles of the gospel with blind credulity; that, as it is possible to discern between sufficient and insufficient evidence, so it is not more difficult to distinguish between true and false miracles; and, lastly, that false miracles were soon employed by Christians as engines to support and propagate their religion, and perhaps not unsuccessfully; but were, upon the whole, more injurious than serviceable to the cause which they were called in to maintain.

The fourth of this series of secondary causes, which this author thinks to have been adequate to the propagation of Christianity, is the virtues of the primitive Christians. These he is willing to attribute to other and less generous motives, rather than to the pure influence of the doctrines and precepts of their religion.

The first converts to Christianity were most of them from among the lowest and most worthless characters. The wife, the mighty, and those who were distinguished by specious virtues, were in general perfectly satisfied with their present circumstances and future prospects. People whose minds were naturally weak, unenlightened, or oppressed with the sense of atrocious guilt, and who were infamous or outcasts from society, were eager to grasp at the hopes which the gospel held out to them.

When, after enlisting under the banner of Christ, they began to consider themselves as "born again to newness of life;" remorse and fear, which easily prevail over weak minds; selfish hopes of regaining their reputation, and attaining to the honours and happiness of those mansions which Jesus was said to have gone to prepare; with a desire to raise the honour and extend... The influence of the society of which they were become members: all together operated so powerfully as to enable them to display both active and passive virtue in a very extraordinary degree. Their virtues did not flow from the purest and noblest source; yet they attracted the notice and moved the admiration of mankind. Of those who admired, some were eager to imitate; and, in order to that, thought it necessary to adopt the same principles of action.

Their virtues, too, were rather of that species which excite wonder, because uncommon, and not of essential utility in the ordinary intercourse of society; than of those which are indispensably necessary to the existence of social order, and contribute to the ease and convenience of life. Such virtues were well calculated to engage the imitation of those who had failed egregiously in the practice of the more social virtues.

Thus they practiced extraordinary, but useless and unsocial virtues, upon no very generous motives; those virtues drew upon them the eyes of the world, and induced numbers to embrace their faith.

We must, however unwillingly, declare that this is plainly an uncandid account of the virtues of the primitive Christians, and the motives from which they originated. The social virtues are strongly recommended through the gospel. No degree of mortification or self-denial, or seclusion from the ordinary benefits and amusements of social life, was required of the early converts to Christianity; save what was indispensably necessary to wean them from the irregular habits in which they had before indulged, and which had rendered them nuisances in society, and to form them to new habits equally necessary to their happiness and their usefulness in life. We allow that they practiced virtues which in other circumstances would, however splendid, have been unnecessary. But in the difficult circumstances in which the first Christians were placed, the virtues which they practiced were in the highest degree social. The most prominent feature in their character was, "their continuing to entertain sentiments of generous benevolence, and to discharge ferulously all the social duties," towards those who exercised neither charity nor humanity, and frequently not even bare integrity and justice, in their conduct towards them.

It cannot be said with truth, that such a proportion of the primitive Christians were people whose characters had been infamous and their circumstances desperate, as that the character of the religion which they embraced can suffer from this circumstance. Nor were they only the weak and illiterate whom the apostles and their immediate successors converted by their preaching. The criminal, to be sure, rejoiced to hear that he might obtain absolution of his crimes; the mourner was willing to receive comfort; minds of refined and generous feelings were deeply affected with that goodness which had induced the Son of God to submit to the punishment due to sinners; but the simplicity, the rationality, and the beauty of the Christian system, likewise prevailed in numerous instances over the pride and prejudices of the great and the wise: in so many instances, as are sufficient to vindicate the Christian church from the aspersions by which it has been represented as being in the first period of its existence merely a body of criminals and idiots.

The principles, too, from which the virtues of the first Christians originated, were not peculiarly mean and selfish; nay, they seem to have been uncommonly sublime and disinterested. Remorse in the guilty mind is a natural and reasonable sentiment; the desire of happiness in every human breast is equally so. It is uncandid to cavil against the first Christians for being, like the rest of mankind, influenced by these sentiments: And when we behold them overlooking temporary possessions and enjoyments, extending their views to futurity, and "living by faith;" when we observe them "doing good to those who hated them, blessing those who cursed them, and praying for those by whom they were despitefully used:" can we deny their virtues to have been of the most generous and disinterested kind.

We allow then that the virtues of the first Christians must have contributed to the propagation of their religion: but it is with pain that we observe this respectable writer studiously laboring to misrepresent the principles from which those virtues arose; and not only the principles from which they arose, but also their importance in society.

The fifth cause was the mode of church government adopted by the first Christians, by which they were welded together in one society; who preferred the church and its interests to their country and civil concerns. We will not deny, that the mutual attachment of the primitive Christians contributed to spread the influence of their religion; and the order which they maintained, in consequence of being animated with this spirit of brotherly love, and with such ardent zeal for the glory of God, must no doubt have produced no less happy effects among them than order and regularity produce on every other occasion on which they are strictly observed. But whether the form of church-government, which was gradually established in the Christian church, was actually the happiest that could possibly have been adopted; or whether, by establishing a distinct society, with separate interests, within the Roman empire, it contributed to the dissolution of that mighty fabric, we cannot here pretend to inquire. These are subjects of discussion, with respect to which we may with more propriety endeavour to satisfy our readers elsewhere.

From the whole of this review of what Mr Gibbon General has so speciously advanced concerning the influence of these five secondary causes in the propagation of the concern- ing the influence of the gospel, we think ourselves warranted to conclude, That the zeal of the first Christians was not, as he represents it, intolerant: That the doctrine of the im-causes, mortality of the human soul was somewhat better understood in the Heathen world, particularly among the Greeks and Romans, and the Jews, than he represents it to have been; and had an influence somewhat happier than what he attributes to it: That the additional circumstances by which, he tells us, the first preachers of Christianity improved the effects of this doctrine, were far from being calculated to allure converts: That the heathens, therefore, were not quite so well prepared for an eager reception of this doctrine as he would persuade us they were; and, of consequence, could not be influenced by it to so considerable a degree in their conversion: That real, unquestionable miracles, performed by our Saviour, by his apostles, and by their successors, did contribute signally to the propagation of Christianity; but are not to be ranked among the secondary causes: That weakness and blind zeal did at times employ pretended miracles for the same purpose not altogether ineffectually: That though these delusive and wicked means might be in some instances successful; yet they were, upon the whole, much more injurious than beneficial: That the virtues of the primitive Christians arose from the most generous and noble motives, and were in their nature and tendency highly favourable to social order, and to the comfort of mankind in the social state: And, lastly, That the order and regularity of church-government, which were gradually established among the first Christians, contributed greatly to maintain the dignity and spread the influence of their religion; but do not appear to have disjoined them from their fellow-subjects, or to have rendered them inimical to the welfare of the state of which they were members.

Upon the whole, then, we do not see that these secondary causes were equal to the effects that have been ascribed to them; and it seems undeniable, that others of a superior kind co-operated with them. We earnestly recommend to the perusal of the reader a valuable performance of Lord Hailes's, in which he inquires into Mr Gibbon's affections and reasonings concerning the influence of these five causes, with the utmost accuracy of information, strength, and clearness of reasoning, and elegant simplicity of style, and without virulence or passion.