before alluded to is extracted. "To collect, to dispose, and to adorn a series of four score years, in an immortal work, every sentence of which is pregnant with the deepest observations, and the most lively images, was an undertaking sufficient to exercise the genius of Tacitus himself during the greatest part of his life." He was occupied then in collecting materials during the greater part of his life. Say he lived seventy years, and the greatest part of his life forty. At thirty then he began to collect his materials. We are authorized, therefore, to refer the testimony of Tacitus to a much earlier part of his life than his sixtieth year. It is to the time when an historian decides on the reception of a certain document that his testimony refers. But this can seldom be ascertained; we therefore always refer the testimony of an historian to the age in which he flourished, not to the moment in which a certain part of his works was composed. Now Tacitus was born in the year 61 or 62, A. D.; and it is allowed by Bayle in his Dictionnaire Historique, and confirmed by Dr. Lardner, that Tacitus flourished in the first century. Every impartial judge will then I imagine think that Lardner has placed the testimony of Tacitus sufficiently late when he fixes it at 100, A. D. At any rate, I am sure that few will deny that he is as competent to decide such a question as either you or I; and his acknowledged impartiality will guard him against the suspicion of having wilfully antedated the evidence in question.

If then the reason of the thing, and the authority of a competent judge, decide, and they decide against your assertion, that the earliest record of Christianity is the letter by Pliny, the evi

* Vol. ii. p. 409.

† Vol. iii. p. 610. See also Mosheim, vol. vi. Chronological Tables. Even granting that the testimony of Pliny is earlier thanthat of Tacitus, and what do we concede? Nothing, but we gain the means of confuting cur opponent's visionary conjecture. About the year 100, A. D. he tells us Christianity first saw the light. One hundred I suppose he has said for the sake of round numbers. It might have been perchance 101 or 106. Now the latest year to which Pliny's testimony can be referred is 106. Peruse then, reader the account of the state of Christianity in 106, as transcribed from Pliny's letter to Trajan and then say, is it credible that a baseless fabrication, of the nature of Christianity, recommended by "illiterate men," (if their advocacy may be called recommendation) could have diffused itself (pervagata) diffused itself through "cities, towns, villages," engrafted itself in the bosoms of men," of every rank," with "trials and punishments," for its rewards, in the space of at the farthest six years? Nay more, within the same time caused the temple to be "almost forsaken" and the sacred solemnities to suffer " A LONG intermission?", Is this credible? Grant that it is. I have still something in reserve to demolish this castle built in the air. From Pliny's letter it appears that some had been Christians above twenty years. This, alas! brings us back to fourteen years before the time that our theorist permits Christianity to see the light. Fourteen years before our Grecian fabulist had fabricated his Christianity, this history appealed to by Mr. Carlile, affirms Christians to have been in existence! I have

dence of Pliny is justly dated 106, A. D.† consequently, that of Tacitus must be esteemed prior to it.

Before making the strictures which I intend on the remarks which you subjoin to the assertion whose correctness I have now questioned, I will copy the evidence of Tacitus that our reader may judge which is most cogent, his narrative or your conjectures I follow the translation of Dr. Lardner. After a description of the terrible fire at Rome in the tenth of Nero, and the sixtyfourth of our Lord, in which a large part of the city was consumed, and an account of the order given for re-building and beautifying it, and the methods used to appease the anger of the Gods, Tacitus adds, "But neither all the human help, nor the liberality of the Emperor, nor all the atonements presented to the Gods, availed to abate the infamy he lay under of having ordered the city to be set on fire. To suppress therefore this common rumour, Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishments upon those people who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were COMMONLY known by the name of CHRISTIANS. They had their denomination from Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, though checked for awhile, broke out again, and spread not OVER JUDEA, THE SOURCE of this evil, but reached the city also: whether flow from all quarters all things vile and shameful, and where they find shelter and encouragement. At first they only were apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards, a vast multitude discovered by them; all which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. Their executions were so contrived as to expose them to derision and contempt. Some were covered over with the skins of wild beasts, and torn to pieces by dogs; some were crucified; others, having been daubed over with combustible materials, were set up as lights in the night-time, and thus burned to death. Nero made use of his own gardens as a theatre on this occasion, and also exhibited the diversions of the Circus; sometimes standing in the crowd as a spectator, in the habit of a charioteer; at other

already said, that it is not to establish the truth of Christianity,so much as to confute the objection of Mr. Carlile that I write, yet I refrain here from quoting a short sentence of Dr. Lardner's. Speaking of the testimony of Dion Cassius he says, "this is at least the fourth historian who has afforded us a testimony to the persecution (therefore to the existence) of the Christians in the reign of the Emperor Domitian,"* who died, according to Mosheim, in the year 96. Have my readers any pretensions to rationality? if they have (and I doubt it not) they can only give one reply to the following question. Can the testimony of four credible historians be destroyed by a bare conjecture?

+ Lardner, vol. iv. p. 11.

Lardner, vol. iv. 185.

times driving a chariot himself; till at length these men, though really criminal, and deserving exemplary punishment, began to be commiserated as people who were destroyed, not out of regard to the public welfare, but only to gratify the cruelty of one man. This, then, is the evidence of Tacitus, the famous passage copied entire. Is this a description of the Christians supplied by themselves? Is not the evidence most clear and positive? For any other historical fact is their testimony more distinct than is here found for the rise of Christianity? Is such evidence to be destroyed by mere conjecture? Why really, Mr. Carlile, I might, following your example, disprove your existence. I might begin "the age in which Mr. Carlile lived was an enlightened age. Such an age could not persecute. It was an age in which Christianity, that mild and benevolent system, was the religion established by law. The laws, therefore, would breathe its spirit. Such laws could not persecute for a manly avowal of opinion. In such an age, Mr. Carlile could never have been persecuted. There must be an error in history. The character of the times belies the assertions of historians. Mr. Carlile could never have existed.” And "who, I might continue to corroborate my conclusion, who can believe that there ever was seen in human shape one who took a demoniacal pleasure in degrading the human species, in levelling them with the brutes; sneering at God; exhibiting the most revolting representations of him; elevating matter'' matter' into his deity, and himself into an 'animal?' No: I should say this is too much to require of the grossest credulity. It is in vain to adduce the positive testimony of history. It must be a calumny. The history of human nature proclaims it such. Carlile can be nothing but a "hero of fable, the personification of the principle of evil.”

But to come to a very serious matter, how could you, Mr. Carlile, prevail upon yourself to assert, that Pliny, "by his own confession, knew nothing of the Christians" before he came into the Grecian cities of Asia minor? This assertion you must substantiate, or your credit is lost. Here, then, follows Pliny's own account of the matter-your readers shall judge for themselves of the correctness of your assertion. The testimony of Pliny, I have before said, is placed by Dr. Lardner in the year 106, A. D.

"Pliny to the Emperor Trajan wisheth health and happiness. It is my constant custom, Sir, to refer myself to you in all matters concerning which I have any doubt. For who can better direct me when I hesitate, or instruct me when I am ignorant. I have never been present at any trials of Christians; so that I knew not well what is the subject matter of punishment, or of enquiry, or what strictness ought to be used in either. Nor have I been a little perplexed to determine whether any difference ought to be

Tacit. Ann. lib. xv. c. 44. Lard. vol. iii. 611.

made on account of age, or whether the young and tender, and the full grown and the robust ought to be treated all alike; whether repentance should entitle to pardon or whether all who have once been Christians ought to be punished. though they are now no longer so whether the name itself, although no crimes be detected, or crimes only belonging to the name ought to be punished. Concerning all these things I am in doubt.

In the mean time, I have taken this course with all who have been brought before me and have been accused as Christians. I have put the question to them, whether they were Christians. Upon their confessing to me that they were, I repeated the question a second and a third time, threatening also to punish them with death. Such as still persisted I ordered away to be punished, for it was no doubt with me whatever might be the nature of their opinions, that contumacy and inflexible obstinacy ought to be punished. There were others of the same infatuation whom because they are Roman citizens. I have noted down to be sent to the city. In a short time, the crime spreading itself, even whilst under persecution, as is usual in such cases, divers sorts of people came in my way. An information was presented to me without mentioning the author, containing the names of many persons, who, upon examination denied that they were Christians, or had ever been so; who repeated after me an invocation of the Gods, and with wins aud frankincense made supplication to your image, which for that purpose I had caused to be brought, and set before them together with the statues of the deities. Moreover they reviled the name of Christ. None of which things, as is said, they who are really Christians, can by any means be compelled to do. These therefore I thought proper to discharge.

Others were named by an informer who at first confessed themselves Christians and afterwards denied it. The rest said, they had been Christians but had left them; some three years ago, some longer and one or more above twenty years. They all worshipped your image and the statues of the Gods, they also reviled Christ. They affirmed that the whole of their -fault or erro lay in this, that they were wont to meet together on a stated -day before it was light, and sing among themselves alternately a hymn to Christ as a God, and bind themselves by an oath, not to the commission of any wickedness, but not to be guilty of theft, or robbery, or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor to deny a pledge committed to them, when called upon to return it. When these things were performed, it was their custom to separate, and then come together again to a meal, which they ate in common without any disorder; but this they had forborn since the publication of my edict, by which, according to your commands, I prohibited assemblies. After receiving this account, I judged it the more necessary to examine, and that by torture, two maid-servants, which were called ministers. But these discovered nothing, beside a bad and excessive superstitionSuspending, therefore, all judicial proceedings, I have recourse to you for advice for it has appeared unto me a matter highly deserving considera. tion, especially on account of the great number of persons who are in danger of suffering. For many of all ages and every rank of both sexes, likewise are

accused and will be accused. Nor has the contagion of this superstition seized cities only, but the lesser towns also, and the open country. Nevertheless it seems to me, that it may be restrained and corrected. It is certain that the temples which were almost forsaken, begin to be more frequented. And the sacred solemnities after a long intermission, are revived. Victims likewise are every where bought up, whereas for some time there were few purchasers, when, it is easy to imagine, what numbers of men might be reclaimed, if pardon were granted to those who shall repent!"

Now, Sir, point out the "confession." Where does Pliny confess that he knew nothing of this sect before he came into his province? He speaks of ignorance indeed, but solely respecting the way in which the Christians should be treated, and not respecting who they were. But lest your friends should imagine, that I, by withholding the reply of Trajan, endeavour to deprive you of the means of immediate justification, I subjoin his rescript.

"Trajan to Pliny wishes health and happiness.

You have taken the right method my Pliny, in your proceedings with those that have been brought before you as Christians, for it is impossible to establish any one rule that shall hold universally. They are not to be sought for. If any are brought before you, and are convicted, they ought to be punished. However, he that denies his being a Christian, and makes it evident in fact, that is, by supplicating to our Gods, though he be suspected to have been so formerly, let him be pardoned upon repentance. But in no case, of any crime whatever, may a bill of information be received without being signed by him who presents it; for that would be a dangerous precedent and unworthy of my government.", I again demand the "confession." It is not as far as I can perceive to be found in these letters. The Christians are spoken of as persons whose characters were perfectly well known. Pliny designates Christians as certain persons whom he met with in his province. If the name had been new either to himself or the emperor he would have commenced his letter by describing them; he would have said, "since arriving in these parts, I have met with a certain class of men whom they call Christians, a religious body, deriving their name, &c." On the contrary he speaks of the name as one perfectly familiar to himself and the emperor. Had Trajan been ignorant of these Christians, Pliny must have known it, and would have described them, especially as he was anxious to know the will of the emperor respecting the treatment they were to meet with at his hands. Suppose that one of your followers were to write to you for information respecting the arguments which he should employ to confute, say, for the sake of a name, the Keractus. Would he not begin by describing the views of the persons, their arguments, their origin, and whatever else might serve to give you an adequate idea of his wants? And if he did not do so, every rational being would infer that there was a perfect understanding between you and your correspondent respecting the sect in question.

There is a good reason, therefore, to believe, that a Christian was a character well-known, and this, besides the absence of all "confession," negatives your bold assertion, that " Pliny knew nothing, by his own confession, &c."

These remarks are confirmed by the following words of Pliny's letter, "This (i. e. assemblies) they had forborne, since the publication of my edict, by which, according to your commands, I prohibited assemblies." There is good reason to believe, that Pliny wrote his letter to Trajan, soon after his arrival in his province. Before this, he had issued an edict. It is not, therefore, unreasonable to infer, that he brought this edict with