LETTER XIII.

TO THE BISHOP OF EXETER:

CONTAINING

MATERIALS FOR DECIDING THE QUESTION,

WHETHER OR NOT

THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD?

BY C. J. HASLAM.

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR, HULME, MANCHESTER.

MY LORD,

Price one Penny.

After what has been said, I hope you are satisfied that Porphyry was not the author of the Philosophy of Oracles, but that "it is the artifice or forgery of some Christians, designed and contrived to serve the interests of Christianity." Not having any fair and honest means with which to support Christianity, they resorted to foul and dishonest ones. You cannot miss but be satisfied of this, when an authority like Dr. Lardner has declared it. Honest men could never resort to fraud for the purpose of supporting truth, consequently the Fathers were dishonest men, because they did resort to such means, and not for the purpose of supporting truth, as I

believe, but for the purpose of supportinglordship knows what.

your

I have another matter to notice respecting Porphyry, and then I shall proceed to a fresh subject. It will be worth our while to inquire, what became of Porphyry's genuine works, or rather those which he wrote against the Christian religion. Dr. Lardner, in an extract in my last Letter, speaks of these works as having done so much mischief; meaning, I suppose, that Christianity had suffered much, in consequence of the powerful arguments alleged against it by Porphyry. What then became of these works? Does your lordship know? As Dr. Lardner says, truth must be asserted; and the truth, in this instance, is not very creditable to that Church to which your lordship belongs. Does your lordship know, that the works of Porphyry were ordered, by edict, TO BE BURNED? The powerful arguments which he advanced against the Christian religion, were answered by burning the book which contained them. A glorious refutation! Something like your lordship's refutation of a work which I could name, which is performed by calling upon the Government to imprison the booksellers who sell it. Dr. Cave tells us in the preface to his Primitive Christianity, that the works of Pliny, Lucian, Porphyry, Julian, &c. were industriously banished out of the world, by the zeal of the first Christian Princes. The fiery zeal, he might have said, for this seems to have been a true instance of that description of zeal. I will here transcribe, from Socrates' Ecclesiastical History, an edict issued by Constantine, in relation to the works of Arius, wherein mention is made of Porphyry, and his works. It will give us some idea of the zeal of the first Christian Princes, in banishing books out of the world which they could not answer. It is as follows, book I. ch. VII.

"Constantine the puissant, the mighty and noble Emperor, unto the bishops, pastors, and people wheresoever. Inasmuch as Arius traceth the steps of de

that

testable and impious persons: it is requisite that he be partaker with them of the self same infamy and reproach. For as Porphyrius, the sworn adversary and deadly foe of divine service, who lately published lewd commentaries, in the confutation and defiance of the Christian religion, was rewarded according unto his desert, and so recompensed that within the compass of these few years he was not only grieved with great reproach, and blemished with the shameful spot of infamy, but also his impious and blasphemous works, perished and utterly were abolished; even so now it seemed good unto us, to call Arius and his complices, the wicked brood of Porphyrius, look whose manners they have imitated, they may enjoy also the privilege of their name. Moreover we thought good, that if there can be found extant any work or book compiled by Arius, the same should be burned to ashes, so that not only his damnable doctrine may thereby be wholly rooted out: but also that no relick thereof may remain unto the posterity. This also we straightly command and charge, that if any man be found to hide or conceal any book made by Arius, and not immediately bring forth the said book, and deliver it up to be burned, that the said offender for so doing, shall die the death. For as soon as he is taken, OUR PLEASURE IS THAT HIS HEAD BE STRICKEN OFF FROM HIS SHOULDERS. God keep you in his tuition."

This is a fine sample, my Lord, of the tolerance and Christian charity of Constantine, the first Christian Prince! Because a man differed from him in opinion, his pleasure was, that his head be striken off from his shoulders! What a monster! Is your lordship not ashamed of such a Christian Prince? And here Porphyry is spoken of as being detestable and impious, although according to the testimony of Dr. Lardner in my last Letter, page 144, he was a man of a virtuous and generous disposition. However numerous, it seems, a

man's virtues might be, if he happened to oppose Christianity, in the estimation of Constantine, he was detestable and impious. But what was Constantine's own character? I shall give it according to Zozimus, as quoted by Dr. Cave, in the preface to his Primitive Christianity.

"Constantine the great (says Zozimus) being haunted with the conscience of his PRODIGIOUS VILLANIES, and having no hopes given him by the Gentile priests of the expiation of his crimes, embraced Christianity, being told that in the Christian religion there was a promise of cleansing from all sin, and that as soon as ever any closed with it, pardon would be granted to the most profligate offenders."

And yet this man talks about Porphyry being "blemished with the shameful spot of infamy!" Was Porphyry haunted with the conscience of his prodigious villanies? Did he murder his own son and wife, as we are told Constantine did? It appears from this, that Constantine embraced Christianity, not because he was convinced of its truths, but because the Gentile priests gave him no hopes of pardon for his prodigious villanies, while Christian priests did give him hopes. How fortunate were the Christian priests in this instance, and how unfortunate were the Gentile priests! By their craft, they win over to their side an Emperor; and consequently that power from which had proceeded such severe persecutions, was now turned, in their favour. It mattered not, I suppose, whether Constantine was a prodigious villian, or a virtuous man, as long as they secured his protection for themselves and their religion. One would have thought however, that the mild religion of Jesus would have softened the monster in some degree, but instead of that, if a man differed from him in sentiment, his pleasure was, that his head be striken off from his shoulders.

May I inquire, my Lord, the reason, why Christian

Princes banished out of the world the works of Porphyry and others? Was it because they were afraid, that the arguments they advanced would put down, or extinguish the Christian religion ? Dr. Lardner says, in relation to the edict issued by Diocletian for the burning of the Bible, previous to the time of Constantine, that it was a proof that the Heathen people were sensible of the importance of the Bible. But I will give his own words, Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, vol. 111. p. 240:→

"In the Imperial Edict for Diocletian's persecution, in 303, it was expressly ordered, not only that the Christian churches should be demolished, but also that the Scriptures should be burned. And this was the first time, that any such order was published by any of the Heathen persecuting Emperors. And it is a proof, as was before observed, that the Heathen people were then sensible of the importance of those Scriptures."

I am rather at a loss to understand Dr. Lardner's

logic, in this instance. I know very well, that I sometimes burn rubbishy old papers, and it is not because I am sensible of the importance of those papers, but because I am sensible of just the very opposite. And how did Dr. Lardner know but what the Heathens had similar ideas in relation to the Bible? They looked upon the Bible, perhaps, as an offensive piece of absurdity and nonsense, and to burn it was the best way to get rid of it.

Dr. Lardner, however, may be correct in the conclusion he draws from the fact of the Heathens burning the Bible. They might be sensible of its importance. But if they were, and if the fact of their burning the Bible, was a proof that they were sensible of its importance, pray, my Lord, what is the fact of the Christians burning the works of Porphyry and others a proof of? Is it a proof of something else? Is the argument not as much in favour of Heathens, as Christians? And if it be admitted in the one case, must it not be admitted in the