Fall of the Roman Empire," and thus goes in this connexion, to the hands of every individual, and into every family who read that captivating history; a connexion prolific of mischief as it identifies the teacher of infidelity, with the scholar and historian, otherwise authentic. The course pursued by Gibbon is to admit the existence of a great moral revolution throughout the entire civilized world, as produced by the introduction and establishment of Christianity. Admitting this fact, which is indeed undeniable, he attempts to account for it upon mere natural principles. His causes however, are entirely inadequate to the effects attributed to them, and he seems to labor under the conviction of this truth; for his effort is to explain away, and fritter down to insignificance the great facts which he first admits, and for which he professes to account.

In all this we have an example of what perhaps might be aptly styled the jesuitism of infidelity. And the result at which the author of the "Decline and Fall" evidently desired to bring his readers, was that at which his own mind had already come-that in giving up the religions of Judea and the other departments of the Pagan Roman Empire, for that of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, the world was doing little more than exchanging one system of delusion for another, a little more refined and intellectual.

In Watson's" Apology for Christianity," we are furnished with a very efficient antidote to the poison of Gibbon's polite and insinuating deism. On the same occasion and for the accomplishment of the same object many others took the field. There were none however, who seemed to wield a more successful weapon than the Bishop of Landaff And his production may be considered as an unanswered and unanswerable argument in behalf of the Divine authority of the religion of Jesus Christ.

ness.

The danger of Gibbon's treatise consists principally in its insidiousNor is he without his imitators in the present day. For while Paine has his servile copyists, it would seem to be the professed system of infidel tactics, after the example of Gibbon, to make the discourse on politics, the treatise on phrenology, or the lecture on natural science the medium of disseminating irreligious principles, rather than other modes of more easy detection.

With these observations the "Society for the Diffusion of Christian Knowledge" would recommend to the community "Watson's Apology for Christianity"-while they are not to be considered as endorsing every sentiment it may contain.

EDITING COMMITTEE.

AN

APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.

LETTER I.

SIR-It would give me much uneasiness to be reputed an enemy to free inquiry in religious matters, or as capable of being animated into any degree of personal malevolence against those who differ from me in opinion. On the contrary, I look upon the right of private judgment, in every concern respecting God and ourselves, as superior to the control of human authority; and have ever regarded free disquisition as the best mean of illustrating the doctrine, and establishing the truth of Christianity. Let the followers of Mahomet, and the zealots of the church of Rome, support their several religious systems by damping every effort of the human intellect to pry into the foundations of their faith but never can it become a Christian, to be afraid of being asked a reason of the faith that is in him;" nor a Protestant, to be studious of enveloping his religion in mystery and ignorance; nor the Church of England, to abandon that moderation by which she permits every individual et sentire quæ velit, et quæ sentiat dicere.

66

It is not, Sir, without some reluctance, that, under the influence of these opinions, I have prevailed upon myself to address these Letters to you; and you will attribute to the same motive my not having given you this trouble sooner. I had, moreover, an expectation, that the task would have been undertaken by some person capable of doing greater justice to the subject, and more worthy of your attention. Perceiving, however, that the two last chapters, the fifteenth in particular, of your very laborious and classical history of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, had made upon many an impression not at all advantageous to Christianity; and that the silence of others, of the clergy especially, began to be looked upon as an acquiescence in what you had therein advanced; I have thought it my duty, with the utmost respect and good-will towards you, to take the liberty of suggesting to your consideration a few remarks upon some of the passages, which have been esteemed (whether you meant that they should be so esteemed or not,) as powerfully militating against that revelation, which still is to many, what it formerly was "to the Greeks-foolishness;" but which we deem to be true, to "be the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth."

To the inquiry, by what means the Christian faith obtained so remarkable a victory over the established religions of the earth, you rightly answer, by the evidence of the doctrine itself, and the ruling providence of its author. But afterwards, in assigning to this astonishing event five secondary causes, derived from the passions of the human heart, and the

general circumstances of mankind, you seem to some to have insinuated that Christianity, like other impostures, might have made its way in the world, though its origin had been as human as the means by which you suppose it was spread. It is no wish or intention of mine to fasten the odium of this insinuation upon you: I shall simply endeavor to show, that the causes you produce are either inadequate to the attainment of the end proposed; or that their efficiency, great as you imagine it, was derived from other principles than those you have thought proper to

mention.

Your first cause is, "the inflexible, and, if you may use the expression, the intolerant zeal of the Christians, derived, it is true, from the Jewish religion, but purified from the narrow and unsocial spirit, which, instead of inviting, had deterred the Gentiles from embracing the law of Moses."-Yes, Sir, we are agreed that the zeal of the Christians was inflexible; "neither death, nor life, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come," could bend it into a separation "from the love of God which was in Christ Jesus their Lord:" it was an inflexible obstinacy, in not blaspheming the name of Christ, which everywhere exposed them to persecution; and which even your amiable and philosophic Pliny thought proper, for want of other crimes, to punish with death in the Christians of his province. We are agreed, too, that the zeal of the Christians was intolerant; for it denounced "tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that did evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile :" it would not tolerate in Christian worship those who supplicated the image of Cæsar, who bowed down at the altars of Paganism, who mixed with the votaries of Venus, or wallowed in the filth of Bacchanalian festivals.

But though we are thus far agreed with respect to the inflexibility and intolerance of Christian zeal, yet, as to the principle from which it was derived, we are toto cœlo divided in opinion. You deduce it from the Jewish religion: I would refer it to a more adequate and a more obvious source, a full persuasion of the truth of Christianity. What! think you that it was a zeal derived from the unsocial spirit of Judaism, which inspired Peter with courage to upbraid the whole people of the Jews, in the very capital of Judea, with having " delivered up Jesus, with having denied him in the presence of Pilate, with having desired a murderer to be granted them in his stead, with having killed the Prince of life?"— Was it from this principle that the same apostle, in conjunction with John, when summoned, not before the dregs of the people (whose judgments they might have been supposed capable of misleading, and whose resentment they might have despised), but before the rulers and the elders, and the scribes, the dread tribunal of the Jewish nation, and commanded by them to teach no more in the name of Jesus-boldly answered, “that they could not but speak the things which they had seen and heard? They had seen with their eyes, they had handled with their hands, the word of life ;" and no human jurisdiction could deter them from being faithful witnesses of what they had seen and heard. Here, then, you may perceive the genuine and undoubted origin of that zeal, which you ascribe to what appears to me a very insufficient cause; and which the Jewish rulers were so far from considering as the ordinary effect of their religion, that they were exceedingly at a loss how to account for it:-" now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and

perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled." The apostles, heedless of consequences, and regardless of everything but truth, openly everywhere professed themselves witnesses of the resurrection of Christ; and with a confidence which could proceed from nothing but conviction, and which pricked the Jews to the heart, bade "the house of Israel know assuredly, that God had made that same Jesus, whom they had crucified, both Lord and Christ."

I mean not to produce these instances of apostolic zeal as direct proofs of the truth of Christianity; for every religion, nay, every absurd sect of every religion, has had its zealots, who have not scrupled to maintain their principles at the expense of their lives: and we ought no more to infer the truth of Christianity from the mere zeal of its propagators, than the truth of Mahometanism from that of a Turk. When

a man suffers himself to be covered with infamy, pillaged of his property, and dragged at last to the block or the stake, rather than give up his opinion; the proper inference is, not that his opinion is true, but that he believes it to be true; and a question of serious discussion immediately presents itself-upon what foundation has he built his belief? This is often an intricate inquiry, including in it a vast compass of human learning. A Bramin or a Mandarin, who should observe a missionary attesting the truth of Christianity with his blood, would, notwithstanding, have a right to ask many questions, before it could be expected that he should give an assent to our faith. In the case, indeed, of the apostles, the inquiry would be much less perplexed; since it would briefly resolve itself into this-whether they were credible reporters of facts, which they themselves professed to have seen-and it would be an easy matter to show, that their zeal In attesting what they were certainly competent to judge of, could not proceed from any alluring prospect of worldly interest or ambition, or from any other probable motive than a love of truth.

But the credibility of the apostles' testimony, or their competency to judge of the facts which they relate, is not now to be examined; the question before us simply relates to the principle by which their zeal was excited: and it is a matter of real astonishment to me, that any one conversant with the history of the first propagation of Christianity, acquainted with the opposition it everywhere met with from the people of the Jews, and aware of the repugnancy which must ever subsist between its tenets and those of Judaism, should ever think of deriving the zeal of the primitive Christians from the Jewish religion.

Both Jew and Christian, indeed, believed in one God, and abominated idolatry: but this detestation of idolatry, had it been unaccompanied with the belief of the resurrection of Christ, would probably have been just as inefficacious in exciting the zeal of the Christian to undertake the conversion of the Gentile world, as it had for ages been in exciting that of the Jew. But supposing, what I think you have not proved, and what I am certain cannot be admitted without proof, that a zeal derived from the Jewish religion inspired the first Christians with fortitude to oppose themselves to the institutions of Paganism; what was it that encouraged them to attempt the conversion of their own countrymen? Amongst the Jews they met with no superstitious observance of idolatrous rites; and therefore amongst them could have no opportunity of "declaring and confirming their zealous opposition to Polytheism, or of

fortifying, by frequent protestations, their attachment to the Christian faith." Here then, at least, the cause you have assigned for Christian zeal ceases to operate; and we must look out for some other principle than a zeal against idolatry, or we shall never be able satisfacterily to explain the ardor with which the apostles pressed the disciples of Moses to become the disciples of Christ.

Again: Does a determined opposition to, and an open abhorrence of every the minutest part of an old established religion, appear to you to be the most likely method of conciliating to another faith those who profess it? The Christians, you contend, could neither mix with the heathens in their convivial entertainments, nor partake with them in the celebration of their solemn festivals: they could neither associate with them in their hymeneal nor funeral rites: they could not cultivate their arts, or be spectators of their shows: in short, in order to escape the rites of Polytheism, they were in your opinion obliged to renounce the commerce of mankind, and all the offices and amusements of life. Now, how such an extravagant and intemperate zeal as you here describe, can, humanly speaking, be considered as one of the chief causes of the quick propagation of Christianity, in opposition to all the established powers of paganism, is a circumstance I can by no means comprehend. The Jesuit missionaries, whose human prudence no one will question, were quite of a contrary way of thinking; and brought a deserved censure upon themselves, for not scrupling to propagate the faith of Christ by indulging to their pagan converts a frequent use of idolatrous ceremonies. Upon the whole it appears to me, that the Christians were in nowise indebted to the Jewish religion for the zeal with which they propagated the Gospel amongst Jews as well as Gentiles; and that such a zeal as you describe, let its principles be what you please, could never have been devised by any human understanding as a probable mean of promoting the progress of a reformation in religion, much less could it have been thought of or adopted by a few ignorant and unconnected

men.

In expatiating upon this subject you have taken an opportunity of remarking, that "the contemporaries of Moses and Joshua had beheld with careless indifference the most amazing miracles-and that, in contradiction to every known principle of the human mind, that singular people (the Jews) seems to have yielded a stronger and more ready assent to the traditions of their remote ancestors, than to the evidence of their own senses." This observation bears hard upon the veracity of the Jewish Scriptures; and, was it true, would force us either to reject them, or to admit a position as extraordinary as a miracle itself -that the testimony of others produced in the human mind a stronger degree of conviction, concerning a matter of fact, than the testimony of the senses themselves. It happens, however, in the present case, that we are under no necessity of either rejecting the Jewish Scriptures, or of admitting such an absurd position; for the fact is not true, that the contemporaries of Moses and Joshua beheld with careless indifference the miracles related in the Bible to have been performed in their favor. That these miracles were not sufficient to awe the Israelites into a uniform obedience to the Theocracy, cannot be denied; but whatever reasons may be thought best adapted to account for the propensity of the Jews to idolatry, and their frequent defection from the worship of the