MOSHEIM.

unwritten tradition: and I thought myself safe from every species of critics, when I embraced the rational sentiment of Casaubon and Pearson. I shall produce the words of the Bishop: "Præterea iterum observandum est, quod de hac re scripsit Isaacus Casaubonus, Quinetiam fortasse cerius, non ex Evangelio Hebraico, Ignatium illa verba descripsisse, verum traditionem allegasse non scriptam, quæ postea in literas fuerit relata, et Hebraico Evangelio, quod Matthæo tribuebant, inserta. Et hoc quidem mihi multo verisimilius videtur." (Pearson. Vindiciae Ignatianæ, part ii. c. ix. p. 396. in tom. ii. Patr. Apostol.)

I may now submit to the judgment of the Public, whether I have looked into the Epistle which I cite with such a parade of learning, and how profitably Mr. Davis has read it over more than once. XIV. The learning and judgment of Mosheim had been of frequent use in the course of my Historical Inquiry, and I had not been wanting in proper expressions of gratitude. My vexatious adversary is always ready to start from his ambuscade, and to harass my march by a mode of attack which cannot easily be reconciled with the laws of honourable war. The greatest part of the Misrepresentations of Mosheim, which Mr. Davis has imputed to me, are of such a nature, that I must indeed be humble, if I could persuade myself to bestow a moment of serious attention on them. Whether Mosheim could prove that an absolute

• Davis, p. 95-97. 104-107. 114-132.

community

community of goods was not established among the first Christians of Jerusalem; whether he suspected the purity of the Epistles of Ignatius; whether he censured Dr. Middleton with temper or indignation (in this cause I must challenge Mr. Davis as an incompetent judge); whether he corroborates the whole of my description of the prophetic office; whether he speaks with approbation of the humanity of Pliny; and whether he attributed the same sense to the malefica of Suetonius, and the exitiabilis of Tacitus? These questions, even as Mr. Davis has stated them, lie open to the judgment of every reader, and the superfluous observations which I could make, would be an abuse of their time and of my own. As little shall I think of consuming their patience, by examining whether Le Clerc and Mosheim labour in the interpretation of some texts of the Fathers, and particularly of a passage of Irenæus, which seem to favour the pretensions of the Roman Bishop. The material part of the passage of Irenæus consists of about four lines; and in order to shew that the interpretations of Le Clerc and Mosheim are not laboured, Mr. Davis abridges them as much as possible in the space of twelve pages. I know not whether the perusal of my History will justify the suspicion of Mr. Davis, that I am secretly inclined to the interest of the Pope: but I cannot discover how the Protestant cause can be affected, if Irenæus in the second, or Palavicini in the seventeenth century, were tempted, by any private views, to countenance in their writings the system of ecclesias

1

tical dominion, which has been pursued in every age by the aspiring Bishops of the Imperial city. Their conduct was adapted to the revolutions of the Christian Republic, but the same spirit animated the haughty breasts of Victor the First, and of Paul the Fifth.

There still remain one or two of these imputed Misrepresentations, which appear, and indeed only appear, to merit a little more attention. In stating the opinion of Mosheim with regard to the progress of the Gospel, Mr. Davis boldly declares, "that I have altered the truth of Mosheim's history, that I might have an opportunity of contradicting the belief and wishes of the Fathers." In other words, I have been guilty of uttering a malicious falsehood.

I had endeavoured to mitigate the sanguine expression of the Fathers of the second century, who had too hastily diffused the light of Christianity over every part of the globe, by observing, as an undoubted fact, "that the barbarians of Scythia and Germany, who subverted the Roman Monarchy, were involved in the errors of Paganisin; and that even the conquest of Iberia, of Armenia, or of Ethiopia, was not attempted with any degree of success, till the sceptre was in the hands of an orthodox Emperor." I had referred the curious reader to the fourth century of Mosheim's General History of the Church: now Mr. Davis has discovered, and can prove, from that excellent

* Davis, p. 127.

+ Gibbon, p. 611, 612. work,

work, "that Christianity, not long after its first rise, had been introduced into the less as well as greater Armenia; that part of the Goths, who inhabited Thracia, Moesia, and Dacia, had received the Christian religion long before this century; and that Theophilus, their Bishop, was present at the Council of Nice."*

On this occasion, the reference was made to a popular work of Mosheim, for the satisfaction of the reader, that he might obtain the general view of the progress of Christianity in the fourth century, which I had gradually acquired by studying with some care the Ecclesiastical Antiquities of the Nations beyond the limits of the Roman Empire. If I had reasonably supposed that the result of our common inquiries must be the same, should I have deserved a very harsh censure for my unsuspecting confidence? Or if I had declined the invidious task of separating a few immaterial errors, from a just and judicious representation, might not my respect for the name and merit of Mosheim have claimed some indulgence? But I disdain those excuses, which only a candid adversary would allow. I can meet Mr. Davis on the hard ground of controversy, and retort on his own head the charge of concealing a part of the truth. He himself has dared to suppress the words of my text, which immediately followed his quotation. "Before that time the various accidents of war and commerce might indeed diffuse an imperfect

Davis, p. 126, 127.

knowledge

knowledge of the Gospel among the tribes of Caledonia, and among the borderers of the Rhine, the Danube, and the Euphrates;" and Mr. Davis has likewise suppressed one of the justificatory Notes on this passage, which expressly points out the time and circumstances of the first Gothic conversions. These exceptions, which I had cautiously inserted, and Mr. Davis has cautiously concealed, are superfluous for the provinces of Thrace, Moesia, and the Lesser Armenia, which were contained within the precincts of the Roman Empire. They allow an ample scope for the more early conversion of some independent districts of Dacia and the Greater Armenia, which bordered on the Danube and Euphrates; and the entire sense of this passage, which Mr. Davis first mutilates and then attacks, is perfectly consistent with the original text of the learned Mosheim.

And yet I will fairly confess that, after a nicer inquiry into the epoch of the Armenian Church, I am not satisfied with the accuracy of my own expression. The assurance that the first Christian King, and the first Archbishop, Tiridates, and St. Gregory the Illuminator, were still alive several years after the death of Constantine, inclined me to believe, that the conversion of Armenia was posterior to the auspicious Revolution, which had given the sceptre of Rome to the hands of an orthodox Emperor. But I had not enough considered the two following circumstances. 1. I might have recollected the dates assigned by Moses of Chorene, who, on this occasion, may be regarded

as