the religion of Jesus Christ. The word is analogically derived, as other abstracts from their concretes, from the adjective Christian, which again is formed from the name Χριστός, Christus, the Anointed.

For the evidences and doctrines of Christianity see THEOLOGY.

For the general characteristics, early establishment, and corruptions of Christianity, see the third PRELIMINARY DIS-

The history of the world presents no phenomenon so remarkable as the rise and early progress of Christianity. Originating in a country not remarkable for any political, commercial, or literary influence; emanating from one who occupied an humble sphere in the community amidst which he appeared; and announced, in the first instance, by men of mean extraction, of no literary culture, and not endowed with any surpassing gifts of intellect; it nevertheless spread so rapidly that in an incredibly short period of time it had been diffused throughout the whole of the civilized world, and in the fourth century of its existence became the recognised and established religion of the Roman empire.

When it is remembered that this result was achieved not only without the aid of any worldly influence, but in the face of the keenest opposition on the part of all the learning, wealth, wit, and power of the most enlightened and the mightiest nations of the earth, the conclusion is strongly forced upon us that a power beyond that of man was concerned in its success, and that its early and unexampled triumphs afford an incontestable proof of its inherent truth and its divine origin.

To avoid this conclusion, deists have laboured to show that there were certain causes of a purely human kind which operated to the production of this result, and are sufficient to account for it. Of these attempts the most famous is that of Gibbon, who, in the fifteenth chapter of his great work, has discussed at length the causes of the growth of Christianity. He specifies five secondary causes, as he terms them, to which he insinuates the whole success of Christianity may be traced; and though he does not formally deny the divine origin of that religion, he leaves this altogether out of view, and plainly suggests that such a belief is in no degree necessitated by the facts of the case. The notoriety which his attack upon Christianity in this chapter has acquired renders it desirable that we should examine the causes which he has assigned as sufficient to account for the early success of the gospel.

The secondary causes to which he ascribes these effects are, first, the inflexible and intolerant zeal of the Christians, derived from the Jewish religion, but purified from the narrow and unsocial spirit, which, instead of inviting, deterred the Gentiles from embracing the law of Moses; secondly, the doctrine of a future life, improved by every additional circumstance which could give weight and efficacy to that important truth; thirdly, the miraculous powers ascribed to the primitive church; fourthly, the pure and austere morals of the Christians; and, fifthly, the union and discipline of the Christian republic, which gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the heart of the Roman empire.

But before entering upon the examination of Mr Gibbon's causes in the order in which they are here enumerated, we beg leave to remark, that we cannot perceive the propriety of denominating some of these secondary causes, since the miraculous powers ascribed to the primitive church, if they were real, must have constituted a primary cause, and if fallacious, could have been no cause at all, except of its complete subversion. As little can we conceive how such an able and learned author could imagine a zeal strictly and properly inflexible and intolerant, as qualified to produce any other effect than the destruction of the system which they are allowed to have been anxious to promote. But our estimate of the causes assigned by Mr Gibbon will be more fully developed as we proceed in our first examination of them.

In pointing out the connection between the first of these causes, and the effects which he represents as arising from it, this learned and ingenious writer observes, that the religion of the Jews does not seem to have been intended to be propagated among the heathens; and that the conversion of proselytes was rather accidental than consistent with the general spirit of the institutions of Judaism. The Jews were, of consequence, studious to preserve themselves as a peculiar people. Their zeal for their own religion was intolerant, narrow, and unsocial. In Christianity, when it made its appearance in the world, all the better part of the predominant spirit of Judaism was retained; but whatever might have a tendency to confine its influence within narrow limits was laid aside. Christians were to maintain the doctrines and adhere to the constitutions of their religion with sacred fidelity. They were not to violate their allegiance to Jesus by entertain- Christianity.

ing or professing any reverence for Jupiter or any other of the heathen deities; it was not even necessary for them to comply with the positive and ceremonial institutions of the law of Moses, although these were acknowledged to have been of divine origin. The zeal, therefore, which their religion inculcated, was inflexible. It was even intolerant: for they were not to content themselves with professing Christianity and conforming to its laws; they were to labour with unremitting assiduity, and to expose themselves to every difficulty and every danger, in converting others to the same faith. But the same circumstances which rendered it thus intolerant, communicated to it a more liberal and a less unsocial spirit than that of Judaism. The religion of the Jews was intended only for the few tribes; Christianity was intended to become a catholic religion—its advantages were to be offered to all mankind. All the different sects which arose among the primitive Christians uniformly maintained the same zeal for the propagation of their own religion, and the same abhorrence for every other. The orthodox, the Ebionites, the Gnostics, and other sects, were all equally animated with the same exclusive zeal, and the same abhorrence of idolatry, which had distinguished the Jews from other nations.

Such is the general purport of what Mr Gibbon advances concerning the influence of the first of these secondary causes in the propagation of Christianity. It would be uncandid to deny, that his statement of facts appears, in this instance, to be almost fair, and his deductions tolerably logical. The first Christians were remarkable for their detestation of idolatry, and for the generous and disinterested zeal with which they laboured to convert others to the same faith. The first of these principles, no doubt, contributed to maintain the dignity and purity of Christianity; and the second to disseminate it throughout the world. But the facts which he relates are scarcely consistent throughout. He seems to represent the zeal of the first Christians as so hot and intolerant, that they could have no social intercourse with those who still adhered to the worship of heathen deities. But if so, how could they propagate their religion? Nay, we may even ask, how could they live? If they could not mingle with the heathens in the transactions either of peace or war; or witness the marriage or the funeral of the dearest friend, if a heathen; or practise the elegant arts of music, painting, eloquence, or poetry; or venture to use freely in conversation the language of Greece or of Rome; it is not easy to see what opportunities they could have had of disseminating their religious sentiments. If, in such circumstances, and observing rigidly such a tenor of conduct, they were yet able to propagate their religion with such amazing success as they are said to have done, they must surely either have practised some wonderful arts unknown to us, or have been assisted by the supernatural operation of divine power. But all the historical records of that period, whether sacred or profane, concur in proving that the primitive Christians in general did not retire with such religious horror from all intercourse with the heathens. They refused not to serve in the armies of the Roman empire. They appealed to heathen magistrates, and submitted respectfully to their decisions. The husband was often a heathen, and the wife a Christian; or, conversely, the husband a Christian, and the wife a heathen. These are facts so universally known and admitted, that we need not quote authorities in proof of them.

This distinguished writer appears, therefore, not to have stated the facts which he produces under this head with sufficient precision, nor to have reasoned from them correctly. Had the zeal of the first Christians been as 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; for if it had, it must have produced effects directly opposite to those which he ascribes to it.

In illustrating the influence of the next of these secondary causes to which he ascribes 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 moral sentiments and general conduct of the heathens. Even the philosophers who amused themselves with displaying their eloquence and ingenuity on these splendid themes, did not allow them to influence the tenor of their lives; while 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 scarcely ever at pains to reflect whether they consisted of a material and a 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 superstitions 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 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; while those who by their conduct in life had merited, not rewards, but punishments, were consigned to Tartarus. Such were the ideas of a future state which formed part of the popular superstitions of the Greeks and Romans. But these notions 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 in fact a tissue of absurdities; they had not therefore a greater influence on the morals, than the more refined speculations of the philosophers. Even the Jews, whose religion and legislation were communicated from heaven, were in general, till within a very short period before the propagation of the gospel, as imperfectly acquainted with the doctrine of a future state as the Greeks and Romans. This doctrine formed no distinct part of the law of Moses, and it is but darkly intimated in the other parts of the Old Testament.

The rude tribes who inhabited ancient Gaul, and some other nations not more civilized than these, entertained ideas of a future life much clearer than those of the Greeks, the Romans, or even 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 these doctrines, and displayed these views, was such as to silence 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 would live to witness that awful event. Another circumstance which contributed to render this doctrine 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 enforced with these additional and heightening 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, however, facts are rather exaggerated, and the inferences unfairly deduced. It must be admitted that the speculations of the heathen philosophers did not fully and undeniably establish the doctrine of the immortality of the human soul; and hence their arguments could scarcely impress such a conviction of this truth as would influence in a very strong degree the moral sentiments and conduct. These arguments, however, were of such a kind that they must have produced some, nay a considerable influence. Several of the most illustrious among the heathen philosophers appear to have been so 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. Socrates and Plato are eminent and well-known instances. And if, in such instances as these, the belief of the truths in question produced such effects, it may be fairly inferred, though we had no further evidence, that those characters were not 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 of his contemporaries will always be found to rival his excellence, and a number of them will engage 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 Socrates and a Plato, it must certainly have influenced the moral sentiments and conduct of many others, although in an inferior degree. Some who profess to believe the doctrines of Christianity, make this profession, even although 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 the ancient philosophy concerning a future life, and even the notions concerning Olympus, Elysium, and Tartarus, which formed part of the popular superstitions, produced a certain influence on the sentiments and manners of the heathens in general. That influence was often indeed inconsiderable, and not always beneficial; but still it seems to have been greater than Mr Gibbon is 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 the contrast. But here we find one who is at heart inimical to Christianity, displaying, and even exaggerating, these absurdities for a different purpose. The truth, however, may be safely admitted; and it is only when exaggerated that it can serve any purpose adverse to the authority of our holy religion. Mr Gibbon certainly represents the religious belief 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 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 superstitions of the Greeks and Romans. The evidence which Mr Gibbon produces in proof of what he asserts concerning these opinions of the ancient Gauls is partial, and far from being satisfactory. They did indeed assert and believe the soul to be immortal; but this doctrine was blended with a number of absurdities still grosser than those which characterized 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 refined. 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. Accordingly, 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 more than they expected confirmed their understanding, and led them to misconceive and misrepresent. Hence, what ought to be ascribed to the savage ferocity 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 has founded upon this fact an ingenious theory, which we shall elsewhere have occasion to examine, and has supported it with great and various erudition. The reason why this doctrine was not more fully explained to the Jews, we shall not pretend to assign, at least in this place; but we cannot help thinking, that it was more generally known among the Jews than Mr Gibbon and Bishop Warburton 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 Babylonian captivity; and 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 these "gray fathers;" and it seems to have had a strong influence on the mind of Moses himself. Were David and Solomon strangers to this doctrine? We cannot here specify 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 except in the writings of the later prophets, and that even in these it is only darkly insinuated. Were the Jews, in the earlier stage of their history, so totally secluded from all intercourse with other nations, that a doctrine of so much importance, and more or less known to all around, could not be communicated to them? The Pharisees admitted 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; for the Sadducees were regarded as innovators and infidels.

But though we are of opinion that the ingenious historian ascribes to the doctrine of the Greek and Roman phi- Christians, concerning the immortality of the human soul, as well as the notices respecting a future state which formed part of the popular superstitions of those nations, less influence on the moral sentiments and conduct of mankind than what they really exerted; and though we cannot agree with him in allowing that the ideas of the immortality of the soul and of a future state, which were entertained by the Gauls and some other rude nations, were much superior in their nature, or much happier in their influence, than those of the Greeks and Romans; and though, from what is contained in the Old Testament, we are disposed to think that the Jews knew somewhat more concerning the immortality of the human soul, and a 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; it was freed from every absurdity, and so much improved, that its influence, which, as 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 that in no ordinary degree. It undoubtedly contributed to the successful propagation of Christianity; for it was calculated to attract and to please the speculative philosopher, as well as the simple unenlightened votary of the vulgar superstition. The views which it exhibited were distinct; and all was plausible and rational, being demonstrated by the fullest evidence. But the happiness which it promised was of a less sensual nature than the enjoyments which the heathens expected in Elysium; and it would therefore appear less alluring to those who were not capable of entertaining refined ideas, or who 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 in all probability irritated rather than alarmed those whom they sought to convert from that superstition. The heathens, assailed with such denunciations, might be moved to regard with indignant scorn the preacher who pretended that the beings whom they venerated as gods, heroes, and wise men, were condemned to a state of unspeakable and endless torment. Every feeling of the heart would revolt at the idea of a parent, a child, a husband, a wife, a friend, a lover, or a mistress, but lately lost and still lamented, being consigned to eternal torments for actions and opinions which they had deemed highly agreeable to superior powers.

With respect, then, to the influence of this secondary cause in promoting the propagation of Christianity, we may conclude that the circumstances of the heathen world were less favourable to that influence than Mr Gibbon pretends; that the means by which he represents the primitive Christians to have improved 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 conducted to the conviction of infidels. Mr Gibbon's reasonings under this head are, that numerous miraculous works of the most extraordinary kind were ostentatiously 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, as is darkly insinuated, that they were merely the pretences of imposture; and 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, are established as true, upon the most indubitable evidence which human testimony can give to any facts. 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 since been completely refuted; and mankind still continue to acknowledge, that though we are all liable to mistakes, and exposed to imposition, yet human testimony may afford the most convincing evidence of the most extraordinary and even supernatural facts. We cannot be expected to enter, in this place, into a particular examination of the miracles ascribed to the primitive age of the church. An inquiry into these will occupy a prominent place under the appropriate head of Theology, to which the reader is accordingly referred. We may, however, consider it as an undeniable and a generally acknowledged fact, that those miracles were real, and that they contributed, in a very eminent manner, to the propagation of Christianity. But it is evident that genuine miracles are not to be ranked among the natural and secondary causes.

It was long the current opinion, even among Protestants, that a miraculous power continued for several centuries to reside in the Christian church. When Dr Middleton controverted this opinion in his Free Inquiry, he encountered the most vehement and acrimonious opposition; and many of the clergy, with Archbishop Secker at their head, thought themselves warranted in representing this lingering power as an article of faith. But the progress of reason, though slow, is commonly certain; and the late bishop of Lincoln, Dr Kaye, ventured to express himself in the following terms:—“My conclusion then is, that the power of working miracles was not extended beyond the disciples, upon whom the apostles conferred it by the imposition of their hands.”

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 there-

---

1 Kaye's Ecclesiastical History of the Second and Third Centuries, illustrated from the Writings of Tertullian, p. 98. Cambridge, 1826, 8vo. 2 See Mr Weston's Enquiry into the Rejection of the Christian Miracles by the Heathens. Cambridge, 1746, 8vo. Christia-fore the one could receive no assistance from the other.

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

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 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 the author supposes to have been adequate to the propagation of Christianity, is the virtue of the primitive Christians, which 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 originally persons of the lowest and most worthless characters. The wise, the mighty, and those who were distinguished by specious virtues, were in general perfectly satisfied with their actual 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; and a desire to raise the honour and extend the influence of the society of which they were become members; all operated powerfully, so as to enable them to display both active and passive virtue in an 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 many who admired, some were eager to imitate, and, in order to this, 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 practised extraordinary but useless and unsocial virtues, from no very generous motives; and those virtues drew upon them the eyes of the world, and induced numbers to embrace their faith.

We must, however, declare, that this is plainly an uncandid account of the virtues of the primitive Christians, and of the motives from which they originated. The social virtues are strongly recommended in the gospel. No degree of mortification or self-denial, or seclusion from the ordinary business and amusements of social life, was required of the early converts to Christianity, except 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 practised 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 practised 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 scrupulously 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 should 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; and 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, and in instances sufficiently numerous 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: on the contrary, they seem to have been uncommonly sublime and disinterested. Remorse in the guilty mind is a natural and reasonable sentiment; and the desire of happiness in every human breast is equally so. It is uncandid, therefore, 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 and persecuted;" we cannot deny that their virtues were 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 the historian studiously labouring to misrepresent the principles from which those virtues arose; and not only the principles themselves, but also the importance of the actions and conduct which naturally sprung from them.

The fifth cause was the mode of church government adopted by the first Christians, by which they were knit together in one society, and preferred the church and its interests to their country and civil concerns. We do not deny that the mutual attachment of the primitive Christians contributed to spread the influence of their religion; and the order which they maintained, by being animated with this spirit of brotherly love, and with an ardent zeal for the glory of God, must no doubt have produced those happy effects among them which order and regularity produce on every occasion when they are strictly observed. Christians. 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 under another head.

From the whole, then, of this review of what Mr Gibbon has so speciously advanced concerning the influence of these five secondary causes in the propagation 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 immortality 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 that which he ascribes to it; that the additional circumstances by which, he informs 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 that they were, and, of consequence, could not be influenced by it in so considerable a degree in their conversion; that real and unquestionable miracles, performed by our Saviour, and the first race of Christians, contributed signally to the propagation of Christianity, but are not to be ranked among the secondary causes of its diffusion; that weakness and blind zeal did at times employ pretended miracles for the same purpose not altogether ineffectually; that though these despicable 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 tended in no degree to disjoin them from their fellow-subjects, or to render them inimical to the welfare of the state of which they were members. Upon the whole, therefore, we do not see that these secondary causes were equal to the effects which have been ascribed to them; and it seems undeniable that others of a superior kind must have co-operated in the diffusion of Christianity.