re too strong for him
on this occasion, and obstructed his generally clear vision. Yet a
distinction must be made. The offensive tone in question is confined
to these two chapters. We need not think that it was in consequence of
the clamour they raised that he adopted a different style with
reference to church matters in his subsequent volumes. A more
creditable explanation of his different tone, which will be presently
suggested, is at least as probable. In any case, these two chapters
remain the chief slur on his historical impartiality, and it is worth
while to examine what his offence amounts to.

Gibbon's account of the early Christians is vitiated by his narrow and
distorted conception of the emotional side of man's nature. Having no
spiritual aspirations himself, he could not appreciate or understand
them in others. Those emotions which have for their object the unseen
world and its centre, God, had no meaning for him; and he was tempted
to explain them away when he came across them, or to ascribe their
origin and effects to other instincts which were more intelligible to
him. The wonderland which the mystic inhabits was closed to him, he
remained outside of it and reproduced in sarcastic travesty the
reports he heard of its marvels. What he has called the secondary
causes of the growth of Christianity, were much rather its effects.
The first is "the inflexible and intolerant zeal of the Christians"
and their abhorrence of idolatry. With great power of language, he
paints the early Christian "encompassed with infernal snares in every
convivial entertainment, as often as his friends, invoking the
hospitable deities, poured out libations to each other's happiness.
When the bride, struggling with well-affected reluctance, was forced
in hymenaeal pomp over the threshold of her new habitation, or when the
sad procession of the dead slowly moved towards the funeral pile, the
Christian on these interesting occasions was compelled to desert the
persons who were dearest to him, rather than contract the guilt
inherent in those impious ceremonies." It is strange that Gibbon did
not ask himself what was the cause of this inflexible zeal. The zeal
produced the effects alleged, but what produced the zeal? He says that
it was derived from the Jewish religion, but neglects to point out
what could have induced Gentiles of every diversity of origin to
derive from a despised race tenets and sentiments which would make
their lives