The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-09-02

We begin with Gibbon, who, like Chilling
worth, Bayle and TindaI before him, had
turned Roman Catholic i'm his youth. and
had derived from his experience OF saoer-
dotalism an unusually ardent attachment
for pure reason. We need not say that the
!, ma me Of Gibbon is constantly and Justly
associated with that Of Hume in the his
tory OF rationalism. Although born and
bred in England. the historian Of Rome was
hardly more Of an Englishman than was
? the Scotch philosopher, and like him stood
{" quite outside the English movement of
Ahought. his affinities being rather with
the French school. The hest part OF his
-meDtal training was received at Lausanne.
virtually a French city, and his first inten-
ton WAS 20 write his great work in the
French language. Mr.. Benin reminds us
that Gibbons contribution to rationalism,
although thorough and solid 80 far as it
goes, rsnks far below Hume's in weight.
The famous fifteenth and sixteenth chap
tiers Of his history are in substance a reply
to the apologize contention hat the con
quest Of the Roman Empire by Christianity
n was itself n miracle, an event only to be
explained by supernatural Intervention.
Gibbon showed that the revolution could be
sufficiently accounted for by the unaided
d. operation of natural causes. More par
t4euIaFly lie proved that the obstacles to
its achievement had been enormously ex-
aggerated in a controversial interest. Be-
fore Diocletian the prosecutions we're very
!, partial in their incidence; and at no time,
as has hccn proved Ivy Friedlander. was
The number CT martyrs great. At last the
new religion was forcibly imposed on the
. empire by a small minority, to which Con-
. ate milne ard his successors gave, for po-
htical reasons. a somewhat compromising
hupport. Our author submits that TO say
that such arguments do not account for the
origin Of Christianity would lie irrelevant.
To account for that origin was not the his
torian's problem; and he mieh hit nave OBJ
served that the materials for solving il did
not then exist. The unexplained is not
necessarily identical with the inc Xplicable.
i. nor tho iueSplicable with the supernatural.
Otherwise We shCub soon TO overturdened
with miracles, rot Ilw5 ys TO the advantage
|, OF any ore system Of theology II Is MIR.
Benn's cpirion that within the limits as
signed by himself, CilLOn. IL he has not
exhausted the subject, has at any rate mad
a good ! cginning, end The effect OF subse-
ouent inquiry has cen TO strengthen Inc
-natur listic Ca-c--so much 10. indeed. that
/, The difficulty il ret row to explain tho ulti-
: mate tuctsss of Christie nifty, nut to OK
ulsin whv it, success wCs 50 long dela yCd."
IL il. well known that GiLhon, though a
Frecthirkcr, was e Tory. ard will Hobbies,
q BoIinghrCkc. Volta re, Frederick tho Great
and Hume did much TO detSCh free thought
n from lis alliance with the popular cause.
~ Like GU on, Bentham. in his Younger days.
combircd strong Erti-American and anti
JacoIin l~earincS With . thorough detestc-
ton for every kiId Of religion.
10 l. now almost forgotten that when,
toward tho Close OF 1879, the History Of
the Jews" by Ecnry Hart Milman, APP
) reared, il raised a storm OF dis1pproval
end its author was denounced from Uni-
versity and other rulpits as a most dam
Cerous and perniCiouS writer" The reT-
rotation was popularity ascribed to his
having allied Abraham q -sheik." DR..
Newman seems to have objected to the
phrase on the ground that il conveyed
some mysterious suggestion Of infldelity,
though Mr.. Bsnn. for his part. fails 10 rec
how IL involved a more fatal assimilation
; of sacred to profaLo history than is implied
in calling David a king. 1t is suggested
that had the bocl; contained no more dar-
ing innovation. It probably would have
been allowed to circulate quietly among
lbs -. giren Of scrious persons with other
,-h,nes Of the Family Library" As a
matter Of fact, thore was a great deal more.
Nobody, indeed. would now accept Dean
Stanley's description of Milman's little
volumes a. tho first decisive inroad Of
German theology into England" rluch
less concur with another writer in charging
them with -%siltiag and classifying docu-
mentary evidence and evading or minimiz-
ing the miraculous" Marsh's and ThirI-
walls TRANSACTIONS Of Michaelis and Schlei-
.ermacher had n peared earlier, and Ger
.taiDly might bc characterized by those who
love sensational language as -inroads Of
German the 1logy and Coloridge's Church
and State might. without great mac
curacy, he similarly qualified. The truth
n that in his FRS, edition Milman made
NO use whatever Of German criticism,
' Ignored documentary evidence. and re-