tend to have read all that has been written, or to recollect all that they have read; nor is there any disgrace in recurring to the writers who have professedly treated any questions, which, in the course of a long narrative, we are called upon to mention in a slight and incidental manner. If I touch upon the obscure and fanciful theology of the Gnostics, I can accept without a blush the assistance of the candid Beausobre; and when, amidst the fury of contending parties, I trace the progress of ecclesiastical dominion, I am not ashamed to confess myself the grateful disciple of the impartial Mosheim. In the next volume of my history, the reader and the critic must prepare themselves to see me make a still more liberal use of the labours of those indefatigable workmen who have dug deep into the mine of antiquity. The Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries are far more voluminous than their predecessors; the writings of Jerom, of Augustin. of Chrysostom, &c. cover the walls of our libraries. The smallest part is of the historical kind: yet the treatises which seem the least to invite the curiosity of the reader, frequently conceal very useful hints, or very valuable facts. The polemic, who involves himself and his antagonists in a cloud of argumentation, sometimes relates the origin and progress of the heresy which he confutes; and the preacher who declaims against the luxury, describes the manners of the age; and seasonably introduces the mention of some public calamity, that he may ascribe it to the justice of offended heaven. It would surely be unreasonable to ex pect pect that the historian should peruse enormous volumes, with the uncertain hope of extracting a few interesting lines, or that he should sacrifice whole days to the momentary amusement of his reader. Fortunately for us both, the diligence of ecclesiastical critics has facilitated our inquiries: the compilations of Tillemont might alone be considered as an immense repertory of truth and fable, of almost all that the fathers have preserved or invented, or believed; and if we equally avail ourselves of the labours of contending sectaries, we shall often discover, that the same passages which the prudence of one of the disputants would have suppressed or disguised, are placed in the most conspicuous light by the active and interested zeal of his adversary. On these occasions, what is the duty of a faithful historian, who derives from some modern writer the knowledge of some ancient testimony, which he is desirous of introducing into his own narrative? It is his duty, and it has been my invariable practice, to consult the original; to study with attention the words, the design, the spirit, the context, the situation of the passage to which I had been referred; and before I appropriated it to my own use, to justify my own declaration, "that I had carefully examined all the original materials that could illustrate the subject which I had undertaken to treat." If this important obligation has sometimes been imperfectly fulfilled, I have only omitted what it would have been impracticable for me to perform. The greatest city in the world is still destitute of that useful institu tion, a public library; and the writer who has undertaken to treat any large historical subject, is reduced to the necessity of purchasing, for his private use, a numerous and valuable collection of the books which must form the basis of his work. The diligence of his booksellers will not always prove successful; and the candour of his readers will not always expect, that, for the sake of verifying an accidental quotation of ten lines, he should load himself with an useless and expensive series of ten volumes. In a very few instances, where I had not the opportunity of consulting the originals, I have adopted their testimony on the faith of modern guides, of whose fidelity I was satisfied; but on these occasions,* instead of decking myself with the borrowed plumes of Tillemont or Lardner, I have been most scrupulously exact in marking the extent of my reading, and the source of my information. This distinction, which a sense of truth and modesty had engaged me to express, is ungenerously abused by Mr. Davis, who seems happy to inform his readers, that "in ONE instance (chap. xvi. 164, or in the first edition, 163) I have, by an unaccountable oversight, unfortunately for myself, forgot to drop the modern, and that I modestly disclaim all knowledge of Athanasius, but what I had picked up from Tillemont." Without animadverting on the decency of these expressions, which are now grown familiar to me, I shall con Gibbon, p. 605, N. 156; p. 606, N. 161; p. 690, N. 164; p. 699, N. 178. † Davis, p. 273. tent tent myself with observing, that as I had frequently quoted Eusebius, or Cyprian, or Tertullian, because I had read them; so, in this instance, I only made my reference to Tillemont, because I had not read, and did not possess the works of Athanasius. The progress of my undertaking has since directed me to peruse the Historical Apologies of the Archbishop of Alexandria, whose life is a very interesting part of the age in which he lived; and if Mr. Davis should have the curiosity to look into my Second Volume, he will find that I make a free and frequent appeal to the writings of Athanasius. Whatever may be the opinion or practice of my adversary, this I apprehend to be the dealing of a fair and honourable man. IV. The historical monuments of the three first centuries of ecclesiastical antiquities are neither very numerous nor very prolix. From the end of the Acts of the Apostles, to the time when the first apology of Justin Martyr was presented, there intervened a dark and doubtful period of fourscore years; and, even if the Epistles of Ignatius should be approved by the critic, they could not be very serviceable to the historian. From the middle of the second to the beginning of the fourth century, we gain our knowledge of the state and progress of Christianity, from the successive apologies which were occasionally composed by Justin, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Origen, &c. from the Epistles of Cyprian; from a few sincere acts of the Martyrs; from some moral or controversial tracts, which indirectly explain the events and manners of the times; from VOL. IV. Q Q the the rare and accidental notice which piane ters have taken of the Christian sect: from de declamatory narrative which celebrates the ne of the persecutors; and from the Ecciesas History of Eusebius, who has preserved some te luable fragments of more early writers. Since the revival of letters, these original materials have bes the common fund of critics and historians: t has it ever been imagined, that the absolute nd exclusive property of a passage in Eusebius ce Te tullian was acquired by the first who had a coportunity of quoting it. The learned work of Mosheim, de Rebus Christianis ante Constant 10% T was printed in the year 1753; and if I were pos sessed of the patience and disingenuity of Mr. Davis, I would engage to find all the ancient testimonies that he has alleged, in the writings of Dodwell or Tillemont, which were published before the end of the last century. But if I were animated by any malevolent intentions against Dodwell or Tillemont, I could as easily, and as unfairly, fix on them the guilt of plagiarism, by producing the same passages transcribed or translated at full length in the Annals of Cardinal Baronius. Let not criticism be any longer disgraced by the practice of such unworthy arts. Instead of admitting suspicions as false as they are ungenerous, candour will acknowledge, that Mosheimn or Dodwell, Tillemont or Baronius, enjoyed the same right, and often were under the same obliga tion, of quoting the passages which they had read, and which were indispensably requisite to confirm the |