but a forgery; and this he must have known. Du Pin I suppose would say, “Eusebius is excusable in having cited the Philosophy of Oracles as genuine, because he had not examined it." Whether he had or not my argument is the same. For if he had examined it, and found it to be a forgery, he was a dishonest man in imposing it upon the people as genuine. And if he had not examined it, neither might he have examined the Bible, so that I care not which side may be taken. Dr. Lardner, after entering into a long argument, to show, that Porphyry was not the author of this work, sums up as follows, page 219 :

"The conclusion to be made from the whole is, that this is not a work of Porphyry, a Heathen Philosopher, and enemy to Christianity, but of a Christian, and PATRON of Christianity."

A patron of Christianity, my Lord, was the author of this work, and not Porphyry as Eusebius asserts, so that the polite epithet which your predecessor applied to Porphyry, belongs to himself. And again Dr. Lardner says at page 220:

"It is the artifice or forgery of some Christians, DESIGNED AND CONTRIVED TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF CHRISTIANITY IN GENERAL, and possibly likewise of some particular notions of the author himself."

Yes, my Lord, a great deal has been done by designing and contriving. And because we protest against being made the victims of that designing and contriving, we are to be dungeoned at the instigation of your lordship! You must have a stiff conscience, if you feel no compunction at the facts I have made known to you. For I presume you were quite unacquainted with these facts, or you would never have acted the absurd, ridiculous, and irrational part you did, in the last session of Parliament. As a member

of the British Legislature, the character of the country has been injured by you. It is to be hoped however, that in the next session, you will atone for your disgraceful proceedings.

Dr. Lardner, in speaking of the priest that forged this work, at page 221, says :

Having formed a design to exhibit a covert testimony in behalf of Christianity, in the name of some learned Heathen, and to bring into it oracular answers of Heathen Deities; he supposed that no fitter name could be taken than that of Porphyry's: who was in great repute for learning, and who had published the bitterest invectives against Jews and Christians, and the strongest arguments, that had ever been alleged against the Scriptures. And he hoped, by this work, to overthrow Porphyry's long work against the Christians, which had done so much mischief.'

I have no doubt but that this was the motive, which actuated the pious man, who forged the Philosophy of Oracles. And it seems he designed and contrived most beneficially, for the object he had in view. Dr. Lardner proceeds :

"But it is wonderful, that Eusebius should be so easily deceived, and adopt the same thought, and be pleased with it."

Here Dr. Lardner wishes to screen our famous Ecclesiastical Historian from the charge of imposture, by saying that he was deceived. It is natural to expect this. Dr. Lardner was a man of the same profession. Or perhaps the innocence of Dr. Lardner, led him to suppose this, for he evidently was a man of great honesty. I care not however, whether Eusebius was deceived or not. If he was deceived with regard to the Philosophy of Oracles, and easily deceived, as Dr. Lardner says, he might also be deceived with re

gard to the Bible, and therefore his authority in favour of the Bible is destroyed. Besides he might much more easily be deceived, with respect to the genuineness of the Bible, than the genuineness of the Philosophy of Oracles, for the latter was forged in the same century in which he lived, while the Bible was written several centuries before. But who can believe that Eusebius knew less of the affairs of the third century, he having lived in that century, than Dr. Lardner who did not live until the eighteenth century? I have very few doubts myself, but what Eusebius was the actual forger of this work. He was the man who wrote long answers to Porphyry's works against the Christian religion, which, Dr. Lardner says, had done so much mischief, and finding I suppose, that his answers had little or no effect against the objections of his adversary, he resorted to the fraudulent means of forging a work in Porphyry's name, in which Porphyry should declare his conviction that the Christian religion was true, and thus his object would be accomplished; an action at once honourable, and highly becoming a priest. Besides, Dr. Lardner says that Eusebius was pleased with this work. He was like to be pleased with his own performance. Dr. Lardner again says, page 222 :

"Upon the whole, this work is the artifice of some cunning, but not wise Christian."

That cunning Christian was Eusebius I have very little doubt. And after all, we are to look upon these men as being good, pious and religious, pure and immaculate!

Dr. Lardner concludes the article as follows:

"I presume I have now said enough to justify my not alleging any passages from this work, as testimonies of Porphyry, or of any other Heathen writer in favour of Christianity.

"And though this argument has detained us a great

while, perhaps the length of it may be excused; when it is considered, how long the genuineness of this work has been admitted by learned men with great unanimity, and has been suspected by a very few only. If the several reasons here alleged, are not impertinent, but to the purpose, the whole argument ought not to be charged with prolixity. Learned men, as well as others, are oftentimes hard to be convinced of the falsehood of an opinion once embraced by them. Nor will they yield, till they are overwhelmed by a heap of reasons.'

This latter sentence is very creditable to learned men. The reason, I imagine, that they well not yield is, because if they continue to yield much longer, they will have to yield up every "record" on which the Christian religion rests. And then what becomes of "Othello's occupation?" It is natural to suppose that they will not yield. Dr. Lardner proceeds:

"This argument is not very honourable to our Ecclesiastical Historian. I acknowledge it. But I cannot help it. Truth must be asserted."

This is the language of an honest man; which I really believe Dr. Lardner to have been. No, this argument is not very honourable to Eusebius, but highly dishonourable. Had Eusebius been as honest a man as Dr. Lardner, Christianity at this day, would have been where it ought to be. Your lordship knows where.

I have now finished the testimony of Dr. Lardner, with regard to the Philosophy of Oracles.

I will conclude this Letter with a quotation from Dr. Lardner upon the moral character of Porphyry. Priests on all occasions pretend, that when a man opposes Christianity, he is sure to have some evil design, and that his character must be vicious and bad. Vice and infidelity, they pretend, are always associated. We shall see whether they were so in the case of Porphyry. Dr. Lardner says, vol. III. page 124 :

Porphyry, as Eunabius assures us, had a wife named Marcella, a widow, with five children, to whom he inscribed one of his books: in which he says, he married her not for the sake of having children by her himself, but that he might educate the children, which she had by her former husband, who was his friend. Which showed a VIRTUOUS and GENEROUS DISPOSITION. Nor indeed do we meet with reflections made upon his conduct of life. Cyril of Alexandria, in his answer to Julian, makes honourable mention of Marcella, as a woman of a philosophical turn of mind, and for that reason esteemed by Porphyry."

any

There, my Lord, that is not only an answer to you, but to all your brethren. It convicts you all of falsehood. Porphyry, though an infidel, was a man of a virtuous and generous disposition. I beg to close my twelfth Letter.

I am, my Lord, respectfully,

Hulme, November 27th 1840.

C. J. HASLAM.

TO CORRESPONDENTS. All communications must be addressed in future, 65, Stott-Street, George-Street, Hulme, Manchester.

PRINTED BY C. J. HASLAM, HULME.