the truth and substance of their similar narratives. Mr. Davis is so far from allowing me the benefit of this common indulgence, or rather of this common right, that he stigmatises with the name of plagiarism a close and literal agreement with Dodwell in the account of some parts of the persecution of Diocletian, where a few chapters of Eusebius and Lactantius, perhaps of Lactantius alone, are the sole materials from whence our knowledge could be derived, and where, if I had not transcribed, I must have invented. He is even bold enough (bold is not the proper word) to conceive some hopes of persuading his readers, that an historian who has employed several years of his life, and several hundred pages, on the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, had never read Orosius, or the Augustin History; and that he was forced to borrow, at second-hand, his quotations from the Theodosian code. I cannot profess myself very desirous of Mr. Davis's acquaintance; but if he will take the trouble of calling at my house any afternoon when I am not at home, my servant shall shew him my library, which he will find tolerably well furnished with the useful authors, ancient as well as modern, ecclesiastical as well as profane, who have directly supplied me with the materials of my History.

The peculiar reasons, and they are not of the most flattering kind, which urged me to repel the furious and feeble attack of Mr. Davis, have been already mentioned. But since I am drawn thus reluctantly into the lists of controversy, I shall not retire till I have saluted, either with stern defiance

the rare and accidental notice which profane writers have taken of the Christian sect; from the declamatory narrative which celebrates the deaths of the persecutors; and from the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, who has preserved some va luable fragments of more early writers. Since the a revival of letters, these original materials have been ch the common fund of critics and historians; notan has it ever been imagined, that the absolute anteria exclusive property of a passage in Eusebius or Terved tullian was acquired by the first who had an of in portunity of quoting it. The learned work the Mosheim, de Rebus Christianis ante Constantinuadi was printed in the year 1753; and if I were poved sessed of the patience and disingenuity of page Davis, I would engage to find all the ancient re, ha timonies that he has alleged, in the writingsty; a Dodwell or Tillemont, which were publishand,

before the end of the last century. But if I v I ca animated by any malevolent intentions agavis's Dodwell or Tillemont, I could as easily, an of ca unfairly, fix on them the guilt of plagiarismet at producing the same passages transcribed or which slated at full length in the Annals of Cardinge usefi ronius. Let not criticism be any longer disestical by the practice of such unworthy arts. I of admitting suspicions as false as they ar nerous, candour will acknowledge, that or Dodwell, Tillemont or Baronius. same right, and often were under tion, of quoting the passages whi and which were indispensably

595

the truth and substance of their similar narratives. Mr. Davis is so far from allowing me the benefit of this common indulgence, or rather of this common right, that he stigmatises with the name of plagiarism a close and literal agreement with Dodwell in the account of some parts of the persecution of Diocletian, where a few chapters of Eusebius and Lactantius, perhaps of Lactantius alone, are the sole materials from whence our knowledge could be derived, and where, if I had not transcribed, I must have invented. He is even bold enough (bold is ot the proper word) to conceive some hopes of ersuading his readers, that an historian who has ployed several years of his life, and several huned pages, on the Decline and Fall of the Roman mpire, had never read Orosius, or the Augustin story; and that he was forced to borrow, at sed-hand, his quotations from the Theodosian

MR. AP-
THORPE.

or gentle courtesy, the theological champions who have signalized their ardour to break a lance against the shield of a Pagan adversary. The Fifteenth and Sixteenth Chapters have been honoured with the notice of several writers, whose names and characters seemed to promise more maturity of judgment and learning than could reasonably be expected from the unfinished studies of a Bachelor of Arts. The Reverend Mr. Apthorpe, Dr. Watson, the Regius Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, Dr. Chelsum of Christ Church, and his associate Dr. Randolph, President of Corpus Christi College, and the Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity in the University of Oxford, have given me a fair right, which, however, I shall not abuse, of freely declaring my opinion on the subject of their respective criticisms.

If I am not mistaken, Mr. Apthorpe was the first who announced to the public his intention of examining the interesting subject which I had treated in the Two last Chapters of my History. The multitude of collateral and accessary ideas which presented themselves to the author, insensibly swelled the bulk of his papers to the size of a large volume in octavo; the publication was delayed many months beyond the time of the first advertisement; and when Mr. Apthorpe's Letters appeared, I was surprised to find, that I had scarcely any interest or concern in their contents. They are filled with general observations on the Study of History, with a large and useful cata

logue

logue of Historians, and with a variety of reflexions, moral and religious, all preparatory to the direct and formal consideration of my Two last Chapters, which Mr. Apthorpe seems to reserve for the subject of a Second Volume. I sincerely respect the learning, the piety, and the candour of this gentleman, and must consider it as a mark of his esteem, that he has thought proper to begin his approaches at so great a distance from the fortifications which he designed to attack.

SON.

When Dr. Watson gave to the public his Apo- Dr. Wat logy for Christianity, in a Series of Letters, he addressed them to the Author of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, with a just confidence that he had considered this important object in a manner not unworthy of his antagonist or of himself. Dr. Watson's mode of thinking bears a liberal and a philosophic cast; his thoughts are expressed with spirit, and that spirit is always tempered by politeness and moderation, Such is the man whom I should be happy to call my friend, and whom I should not blush to call my antago, nist. But the same motives which might tempt me to accept, or even to solicit, a private and amicable conference, dissuaded me from entering into a public controversy with a writer of so respectable a character; and I embraced the earliest opportunity of expressing to Dr. Watson himself, how sincerely I agreed with him in thinking, "That as the world is now possessed of the opinion of us both upon the subject in question, it may be perhaps

Q23