the sufferings of the early
confessors. His computation, which will allow of "an annual
consumption of a hundred and fifty martyrs," is nothing short of
cynical. Still he did good service in insisting on chapter and verse
and fair historical proof of these frightful stories, before they were
admitted. Dean Milman acknowledges so much, and defends him against
the hot zeal of M. Guizot, justly adding that "truth must not be
sacrificed even to well-grounded moral indignation," in which
sentiment all now will no doubt be willing to concur.

The difference between the Church in the Catacombs, and the Church in
the Palaces at Constantinople or Ravenna, measures the difference
between Gibbon's treatment of early Christian history and his
treatment of ecclesiastical history. Just as the simple-hearted
emotions of God-fearing men were a puzzle and an irritation to him, so
he was completely at home in exposing the intrigues of courtly bishops
and in the metaphysics of theological controversy. His mode of dealing
with Church matters from this point onward is hardly ever unfair, and
has given rise to few protestations. He has not succeeded in pleasing
everybody. What Church historian ever does? But he is candid,
impartial, and discerning. His account of the conversion of
Constantine is remarkably just, and he is more generous to the first
Christian Emperor than Niebuhr or Neander. He plunges into the Arian
controversy with manifest delight, and has given in a few pages one of
the clearest and most memorable _resumes_ of that great struggle. But
it is when he comes to the hero of that struggle, to an historic
character who can be seen with clearness, that he shows his wonted
tact and insight. A great man hardly ever fails to awaken Gibbon into
admiration and sympathy. The "Great Athanasius," as he often calls
him, caught his eye at once, and the impulse to draw a fine character,
promptly silenced any prejudices which might interfere with faithful
portraiture. "Athanasius stands out more grandly in Gibbon, than in
the pages of the orthodox ecclesiastical historians"--Dr. Newman has
said,--a judge whose competence will not be questioned. And as if to
show how much insight depends on sympathy, Gibbon is immediately more
just and open to the merits of the Christian community, than he had
been hitherto. He now sees "that the privileges of the Church had
already revived a sense of order and freedom in the Roman government."
His chapter