XXVIII. EDWARD GIBBON, ESQ. TO J. B. HOLROYD, ESQ.

Feb. 21, 1772. Dear Holroyd,However, notwithstanding my indignation, I will employ five minutes in telling you two or three recent pieces of news.

1. Charles Fox is commenced patriot, and is already attempting to pronounce the words country, liberty, corruption, &c.; with what success, time will discover. Yesterday he resigned the admiralty. The story is, that he could not prevail on ministry to join with him in his intended repeal of the marriage act (a favourite measure of his father, who opposed it from its origin,) and that Charles very judiciously thought Lord Holland's friendship imported him more than Lord North's.

2. Yesterday the marriage message came to both houses of parliament. You will see the words of it in the papers: and, thanks to the submissive piety of this session, it is hoped that * * *

3. To-day the house of commons was employed in a very odd way. Tommy Townshend moved, that the sermon of Dr. Knowell, who preached before the house on the 30th of January (id est, before the speaker and four members,) should be burnt by the common hangman, as containing arbitrary, tory, high-flown doctrines. The house was nearly agreeing to the motion, till they recollected that they had already thanked the preacher for his excellent discourse, and ordered it to be printed. Knowell's bookseller is much obliged to the Right Honourable Tommy Townshend.

When do you come to town? I want money, and am tired of sticking to the earth by so many roots. Embrassez de ma part, &c. Adieu. Ever yours.

XXIX. EDWARD GIBBON, ESQ. TO MRS. GIBBON, BERITON.

London, March 21, 1772.

Dear Madam,—I have advanced with some care and some success in gaining an idea of the Lenborough estate. The tenants are at will, and, from a comparison of my rents with the neighbouring ones, particularly Lord * * * *, there is great probability that my estate is much under-let. My friend Holroyd, who is a most invaluable counsellor, is strongly of that opinion. Sir **** is just come home. I am sorry to see many alterations, and little improvement. From an honest wild English buck, he is grown a philosopher. Lord **** displeases every body by the affectation of consequence: the young baronet disgusts no less by the affectation of wisdom. He speaks in short sentences, quotes Montaigne, seldom smiles, never laughs, drinks only water, professes to command his passions, and intends to marry in five months. The two lords, his uncle as well as, attempt to show him that such behaviour, even were it reasonable, does not suit this country. He remains incorrigible, and is every day losing ground in the good opinion of the public, which at his first arrival ran strongly in his favour. Dey

verdun is probably on his journey towards England, but is not yet come. I am, dear madam, &c.

XXX.-EDWARD GIBBON, ESQ. TO J. B. HOLROYD, ESQ.

Pall Mall, May 26, 1772.

you could

Dear Holroyd, I wish you lived nearer, or even that pass a week at Beriton. When shall you be at Richmond, or would there be any use in my going down to Sheffield for a day or two? In you alone I put my trust, and without you I should be perplexed, discouraged, and frightened; for not a single fish has yet bit at the Lenborough bait.

I dined the other day with Mr. Way at Boodle's. He told me, that he was just going down to Sheffield-place. As he has probably unladen all the politics, and Mrs. Way all the scandal of the town, I shall for the present only satisfy myself with the needful; among which I shall always reckon my sincere compliments to madame, and my profound respects for Mr. Datch. I am, dear H., truly yours. It is confidently asserted that the Emperor and King of Prussia are to run for very deep stakes over the Polish course. If the news be true, I back Austria against the aged horse, provided little Laudohn rides the match. N. B.-Crossing and jostling allowed.

XXXI. EDWARD GIBBON, ESQ. TO MRS. HOLROYD, SEN.

Beriton, near Petersfield, Hampshire, July the 17th, 1772. Madam,―There is not any event which could have affected me with greater surprise and deeper concern, than the news in last night's paper, of the death of our poor little amiable friend Master Holroyd, whom I loved, not only for his parents' sake, but for his own. Should the news be true (for even yet I indulge some faint hopes,) what must be the distress of our friends at Sheffield! I so truly sympathise with them, that I know not how to write to Holroyd; but must beg to be informed of the state of the family by a line from you. I have some company and business here, but would gladly quit them, if I had the least reason to think that my presence at Sheffield would afford comfort or satisfaction to the man in the world whom I love and esteem most. I am, madam, your most obedient humble servant, &c.

XXXII. EDWARD GIBBON, ESQ. TO J. B. HOLROYD, ESQ.

Beriton, July the 30th, 1772. My dear Holroyd,—It was my intention to set out for Sheffield as soon as I received your affecting letter, and I hoped to have been with you as to-day; but walking very carelessly yesterday morning, I fell down, and put out a small bone in my ancle. I am now under the surgeon's hands, but think, and most earnestly hope, that this little accident will not delay my journey longer than the middle of next week. I share, and wish I could alleviate, your feelings. I beg to be remembered to Mrs. Holroyd. I am, my dear Holroyd, most truly yours.

XXXIII.—EDWARD GIBBON, ESQ. TO MRS. GIBBON, BERITON. Sheffield-place, August 7th, 1772. Dear Madam, I set out at six yesterday morning from Uppark, and got to Brighthelmstone about two; a very thin season, everybody gone to Spa. In the evening I reached this place. My friend appears, as he ever will, in a light truly respectable; concealing the most exquisite sufferings under the show of composure, and even cheerfulness, and attempting, though with little success, to confirm the weaker mind of his partner. I find, my friend expresses so much uneasiness at the idea of my leaving him again soon, that I cannot refuse to pass the month here. If Mr. Scott, as I suppose, is at Beriton, he has himself too high a sense of friendship not to excuse my neglecting him. I had some hopes of engaging Mr. and Mrs. Holroyd to make an excursion to Portsmouth, Isle of Wight, Southampton, &c., in which case they would spend a few days at Beriton. A sudden resolution was taken last night in favour of the tour. We set out, Mr. and Mrs. Holroyd, Mr. Fauquier, and myself, next Thursday, and shall dine at Beriton the following day, and stay there, most probably, three or four days. A farm-house, without either cook or housekeeper, will afford but indifferent entertainment; but we must exert, and they must excuse. Our tour will last about a fortnight; after which my friend presses me to return with him, and in his present situation I shall be at a loss how to refuse him. I am, dear madam, &c.

XXXIV.—DR. HURD (AFTERWARDS BISHOP OF WORCESTER) TO MR. GIBBON.

Thurcaston, August 29th, 1772.

Sir,-Your very elegant letter on the antiquity and authenticity of the book of Daniel, (just now received,) finds me here, if not without leisure, yet without books, and therefore in no condition to enter far into the depths of this controversy; which indeed is the less necessary, as every thing that relates to the subject will come of course to be considered by my learned successors in the new lecture. For as the prophecies of Daniel make an important link in " that chain, which," as you say, "has been let down from heaven to earth," (but not by the author of the late sermons, who brought into view only what he had not invented,) the grounds on which their authority rests will, without doubt, be carefully examined, and, as I suppose, firmly established.

But in the mean time, and to make at least some small return for the civility of your address to me, I beg leave to trouble you with two or three short remarks, such as occur to me on reading your letter.

Your main difficulties are these two: 1. That the author of the book of Daniel is too clear for a prophet; as appears from his prediction of the Persian and Macedonian affairs: and, 2. too fabulous for a contemporary historian; as is evident, you suppose, from his mistakes, particularly in the sixth chapter.

1. The first of these difficulties is an extraordinary one. For why may not prophecy, if the inspirer think fit, be as clear as history? Scriptural prophecy, whence your idea of its obscurity is taken, is occasionally thus clear, I mean after the event; and Daniel's prophecy of the revolutions in the Grecian empire, would have been obscure enough to Porphyry himself before it.

But your opinion, after all, when you come to explain yourself, really is, as one should expect, that, as a prophet, Daniel is not clear enough; for you enforce the old objection of Porphyry, by observing, that where a pretended prophecy is clear to a certain point of time, and afterwards obscure and shadowy, there common sense leads one to conclude that the author of it was an impostor.

This reasoning is plausible, but not conclusive, unless it be taken for granted, that a prophecy must, in all its parts, be equally clear and precise: whereas, on the supposition of real inspiration, it may be fit, I mean it may suit with the views of the inspirer, to predict some things with more perspicuity, and in terms more obviously and directly applicable to the events in which they were fulfilled, than others. But further, this reasoning, whatever force it may have, has no place here; at least you evidently beg the question when you urge it; because the persons you dispute against maintain that the subsequent prophecies of Daniel are equally distinct with those preceding ones concerning the Persian and Macedonian empires, at least so much of them as they take to have been fulfilled; and that to judge of the rest, we must wait for the conclusion of them.

However, you admit that the suspicion arising from the clearest prophecy may be removed by direct positive evidence that it was composed before the event. But then you carry your notions of that evidence very far, when you require, "that the existence of such a prophecy, prior to its accomplishment, should be proved by the knowledge of its being generally diffused amongst an enlightened nation previous to that period, and its public existence attested by an unbroken chain of authentic writers."

What you here claim as a matter of right is, without question, very desirable, but should, I think, be accepted, if it be given at all, as a matter of favour. For what you describe is the utmost evidence that the case admits: but what right have we in this, or any other subject whatever of natural or revealed religion, to the utmost evidence? Is it not enough that the evidence be sufficient to induce a reasonable assent? and is not that assent reasonable, which is given to real evidence, though of an inferior kind, when uncontrolled by any greater? And such evidence we clearly have for the authenticity of the book of Daniel, in the reception of it by the Jewish nation down to the time of Jesus, whose appeal to it supposes and implies that reception to have been constant and general not to observe, that the testimony of Jesus is further supported by all the considerations that are alleged for his own divine character. To this evidence, which is positive, so far as it goes, you have nothing to oppose but surmise and conjectures; that is, nothing

that deserves to be called evidence. But I doubt, sir, you take for granted that the claim of inspiration is never to be allowed, so long as there is a possibility of supposing that it was not given.

2. In the second division of your letter, which is longer, and more elaborate, than the first, you endeavour to show that the historical part of the book of Daniel, chiefly that of the sixth chapter, is false and fabulous, and, as such, confutes and overthrows the prophetical. What you advance on this head, is contained under five articles : 1. You think it strange that Daniel, or any other man, should be promoted to a secret office of state, "for his skill in divination."

But here, first, you forget that Joseph was thus promoted for the same reason. Or, if you object to this instance, what should hinder the promotion either of Joseph or Daniel, (when their skill in divination had once brought them to the notice and favour of their sovereign,) for what you call " mere human accomplishments?" For such assuredly both these great men possessed, if we may believe the plain part of their story, which asserts of Joseph, and indeed proves, that he was in no common degree "discreet and wise;" and of Daniel, that "an excellent spirit was found in him;" nay, that "he had knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom," over and above his "understanding in all visions and dreams." In short, sir, though princes of old might not make it a rule to choose their ministers out of their soothsayers, yet neither would their being soothsayers, if they were otherwise well accomplished, prevent them from being ministers. Just as in modern times, though churchmen have not often, I will suppose, been made officers of state, even by bigoted princes, because they were churchmen; yet neither have they been always excluded from serving in those stations when they have been found eminently qualified for them.

2. Your next exception is, that a combination could scarce have been formed in the court of Babylon against the favourite minister, (though such factions are common in other courts,) because the courtiers of Darius "must have apprehended that the piety of Daniel would be asserted by a miraculous interposition;" of which they had seen a recent instance. And here, sir, you expatiate with a little too much complacency on the strange indifference which the ancient world showed to the gift of miracles. You do not, I dare say, expect a serious answer to this charge; or if you do, it may be enough to observe, what I am sure your own reading and experience must have rendered very familiar to you, that the strongest belief, or conviction of the mind, perpetually gives way to the inflamed selfish passions; and that, when men have any scheme of interest or revenge much at heart, they are not restrained from pursuing it, though the scaffold and the axe stand before them in full view, and have perhaps been streaming but the day before with the blood of otherstate-criminals. I ask not, whether miracles have ever actually existed, but whether you do not think that multitudes have been firmly persuaded of their existence; and yet their indifference about them, is a fact which I readily concede to.

Your third criticism is directed against what is said of "the law