which our age is so remarkable, the Christian philosopher will pause with feelings of a far deeper interest than those which animate the man of mere natural science. Instead of indulging in guesses and theories about their supposed antiquity, only to be contradicted by further investigations, he will ponder over the illustrations which they afford of the truth of Scripture, in the judgments which it denounces on sinful and godless nations; he will see in the downfall and extinction of whole races, once eminent in art and science, a verification of that law which links mankind with the moral governor of the world, and which acts with as unerring certainty as any of the material laws of the universe. And in the low degraded hordes still to be found in Africa, Australia, and America, he will discover the fearful fruits of that moral corruption which, according to the Word of God, is inherent in our very nature, and which may reduce nations, as certain diseases may reduce the human body, to a state of atrophy beyond the reach of all remedies, and destined to issue in utter extermination. Another inference suggests itself. We are accustomed to boast of our high civilisation, while, in point of fact, the worst vices of savage life prevail among ourselves to a degree which threatens the subversion of society. Nothing is more characteristic of a state of barbarism than the substitution of brute force for the dictates of law, justice, and humanity. And what is war, with all its brilliant appendages, but a refined edition of the blood-thirsty savage, with his tomahawk and scalping-knife. War may be, and we believe it is, a necessary evil; but who will assert that society has reached the fulness of civilisation when such an evil is found necessary? And are we entitled to affect horror at the treachery and untruthfulness of savage tribes, while the art of commercial swindling and political immorality has come to such perfection as to threaten the destruction of that mutual confidence which is the basis of society? In concluding these remarks, we think it must be very apparent that the mere physiologist is unfit to sit in judgment on a question so wide and comprehensive as that of civilisation. He may be cited as a witness, but, after having given his evidence, he must be put out of court, and dismissed to follow his own business. There is no grander spectacle than that of physical science in combination with high morals, and that meekness and lowliness of mind which flows from Christian faith. But physical science, cultivated exclusively for its own sake, and as an end, inevitably tends, in our poor nature, to contract, to carnalise, and, in some cases, even to embrutify, if we may so speak, the judgment of its devotees; the mind becomes insensibly impregnated with the muddy qualities of the soil through which it runs, so that when applied to questions of human life, it becomes confused, giving birth to a monstrous brood of misshapen speculations. In short, the subject is worthy of the gravest attention of all who aim at social reform, which is infinitely more important than any reform of a political description. We have been thoroughly misunderstood, if we are supposed to object to the scientific instruction of the masses; but if we would expect to see the good results of such illumination, let science go hand in hand with morality and religion, instead of being, as it too often has been, exalted at their expense. Let not our associations, for the encouragement of the arts and sciences, be converted into masked batteries for assaulting the truths of revelation, and the best interests of our moral nature; and without turning the reading-desk of the lecture-room into a pulpit for the inculcation of spiritual truths, let our public instructors be selected from men who can be scientific without being sceptical, and who can unfold the world of nature in a spirit of reverence for the God that made it. ART. VIII.—Irony in History; or, Was Gibbon an Infidel? By Rev. JAMES M. MACDONALD, D.D., Princeton, N.J. Part I.* 1. THE Charge against Gibbon, as stated by Dean Milman and Bishop Watson.-The author of the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" has been accused of resorting to irony and sarcasm in those parts of his work where he seems to speak approvingly of Christianity, especially in the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters. The charge, as reduced to distinct terms by those who profess to have made this history their study for the purpose of furnishing a corrective to its statements (or the manner of its statements), is as follows: "The art of Gibbon," says Milman (in his edition of the "Decline and Fall," designed, professedly, to correct by notes *We insert the following article from the Bibliotheca Sacra for July 1868, without pledging ourselves to the conclusion which the ingenious writer has arrived at. Some may not be prepared to denounce Gibbon as an infidel, and yet may remain seriously persuaded that his mode of accounting for the progress of Christianity in the two famous chapters of his history, is justly chargeable with a tendency too favourable to infidelity. But it must be allowed by all, that the question as to Gibbon's personal scepticism has been treated in this article with singular fairness and ability.-Ed. B. F. E. Review. such inaccuracies or misstatements as may have been detected, particularly with regard to Christianity), "or, at least, the unfair impression produced by his two memorable chapters, consists in his confounding together in one indistinguishable mass, the origin and apostolic propagation of the new religion with its later progress. The main question, the divine origin of the religion, was dexterously eluded or speciously conceded by Gibbon. His plan enabled him to commence his account, in most parts, below the apostolic times; and it was only by the strength of the dark colouring with which he brought out the failings and the follies of the succeeding ages, that a shadow of doubt and suspicion was thrown back on the primitive period of Christianity."* Among the various answers made to Gibbon on the first appearance of his work, Bishop Watson's "Apology" is the only one Milman considers as possessed of sufficient merit to render it worthy of notice. In his preface, above quoted, he describes it as "able," but as being " rather a general argument than an examination of misstatements." "In assigning," says Bishop Watson, "to this astonishing event [the early success of Christianity] 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.' Statements of the objections to this history might be given from a great variety of sources, but none from better-informed or more careful writers. The gravamen of the whole appears to be that Gibbon explained the rapid extension of Christianity by secondary causes, and that his express admission of the divine origin of this religion must be taken in an insidious and ironical sense; his true meaning being that it is unnecessary, in view of such causes, to admit that this religion had any such origin. 2. Irony, its Nature and Use.-Irony consists in seeming to adopt false conclusions or sophistical reasonings for the purpose of making their absurdity appear. It is a use of language conveying a meaning contrary to its literal import. It is a reductio ad ridiculum. When properly used it is an effective weapon, and there is no kind of writing to which it is not adapted. We find it even in the Bible; as when Elijah taunted the prophets of Baal, and said, "Cry aloud; for he is * "Milman's Gibbon" (Boston, 1853), Preface, pp. 15, 16. Was Gibbon an Infidel? 811 a god. Either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is on a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked" (1 Kings xviii. 27). It occurs frequently in the appeals of orators and public speakers; as, for example, in the Philippics of Demosthenes and the orations of Cicero; in the speeches of Chatham and Burke, Henry and Webster; in the sermons of Saurin and South. Sometimes it has been extensively used in arguments on the gravest questions. It characterises in an eminent degree the Provincial Letters of Pascal. The late Archbishop Whately published a pamphlet under the title of "Historic Doubts relative to the Existence of Napoleon Bonaparte," wholly ironical; the object of which was to shew that objections similar to those brought against the Scripture history, and much more plausible, might be urged against all the received accounts of this distinguished personage of modern history. Edmund Burke had in like manner before him, in his "Defence of Natural Society, by a late Noble Lord," assuming the person of Bolingbroke, proved, according to the principles of that author, that the arguments he brought against ecclesiastical, would equally lie against civil, institutions. 3. Illegitimate Use of Irony-Care, of course, must be taken to make such use of language, or to employ, in oral discourse, such emphasis in pronunciation, that the real meaning may not be mistaken. No argument is required to shew that a writer is guilty of a gross literary blunder who so uses irony that he is fairly understood as sincerely defending the false proposition he assumes, or who so much as leaves it doubtful whether he is employing it or not. If, for example, Elijah might have been fairly understood as expressing his belief that Baal was truly God when he said he was a god; if Pascal in his raillery of the fathers of the Sorbonne had been understood as pronouncing their logomachies solid arguments; if Demosthenes had been understood as affirming that the ambassadors and representatives of Philip were superior to the king himself; Burke as proclaiming himself a disciple of Bolingbroke, and Whately as denying the existence of such a man as Bonaparte, or attempting to inculcate universal scepticism; or if the language used in any of these cases had left it doubtful what was intended, then is it clear that the writer, however great his name in literature, has made an illegitimate and unskilful use of this mode of writing. Its ironical character must be evident, or the purpose of its introduction is defeated, and worse than defeated. Especially is this true in history. History professes to deal with facts. We properly regard the narrator of it as in some sense a witness on the stand. He must speak truly. He has no right to trifle, or to speak under such tropes as to hide his real meaning. If he purposely hides his real meaning, so far as facts are concerned, it of course becomes a false statement; and to the extent this vice of style characterises a work, it is rendered valueless as a history. Irony may be as legitimately employed in historical as in any other writings; but under the same necessary law, it must be evident that it is employed. If whole pages and chapters, and an entire class of facts and characters in a history covering several centuries are presented ironically, and the irony is left doubtful, so that we can neither decide where it begins nor where it ends, it seems to be a just ground of condemnation of the whole work. If Gibbon wrote in this style, Paley might well ask with reference to the difficulty of answering him, "Who can refute a sneer?" and Byron describe him as Snapping a solemn creed with solemn sneer, 4. The Historian to speak for himself.-The most satisfactory course to be pursued in eliciting the truth on this subject, is first to take up the work itself, to ascertain from it, so far as this is possible, the author's real sentiments regarding Christianity, as if we knew nothing of his personal history. To permit what he has himself put on record, in the matter whereof he is called in question, to testify for or against him, according to a just interpretation, seems, indeed, to be the only fair mode of proceeding. After this is done, we may then inquire whether there is any evidence from other writings or sources, that he stood in a hostile attitude towards Christianity, Not only the true position, on the most important of all questions, of a man who must be allowed to have been one of the greatest ornaments of historical literature is concerned; but in respect to this important question itself, the divinity of the Christian religion, the truth of history, as far as the authority and testimony of this work extend, is directly involved. 5. Mr Gibbon on the Success of Christianity.-The fifteenth chapter opens with this striking paragraph: "A candid and rational inquiry into the progress and establishment of Christianity may be considered as a very essential part of the history of the Roman empire. While that great body was invaded by open violence, or undermined by slow decay, a pure and humble religion gently insinuated itself into the minds of men, grew up in silence and obscurity, derived new vigour from opposition, and finally erected the triumphant banner of the cross on the ruins of the capitol. Nor was the influence of Christianity confined to the period or to the limits of the Roman empire. After a revolution of thirteen or fourteen centuries, that religion is still professed by the nations of Europe, the most dis |