rated by Tertullian and Eusebius, has very little probability at the bottom of it; which is a poor compliment to these two celebrated Christian writers.

รา

And, my Lord, if the testimony of Du Pin is not enough, allow me to give you that of Dr. Lardner on the same subject, which perhaps is a little more decisive. Dr. Lardner, in his Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, vol. 1. ch. II. p. 316, says,

Joff

"The acts of Pontius Pilate, and his Letter to Tiberius, which we now have, are not genuine, but manifestly SPURIOUS. Nevertheless it must be allowed by all, that Pontius Pilate composed some memoirs concerning our Saviour, whether Justin Martyr and Tertullian have given a just account of them or not.

There, my Lord, the matter is decided, Dr. Lardner being one of your highest authorities. The Letter, says he, of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius is manifestly spurious. Thus have we another instance of the pious Fathers of the Church deceiving people with forged productions, and acting the character of impostors. Although this Letter was manifestly spurious, they imposed it upon the people as the genuine production of Pontius Pilate, And how many converts they gained in virtue of it, no one knows. Is it not evident, my Lord, that the Fathers gained converts to the Christian religion under false pretences? And what does the law award to people who gain money under false pretences? And is there less criminality in the one case, than there is in the other? Is it less criminal to deceive people with false writings, and lead them astray from the truth and hap piness, than it is to obtain, under similar means, inanimate pieces of metal or paper? My morality informs me, that there is more criminality in the one case than in the other; and if punishment is due to the man who obtains money under false pretences, it ought not to be withheld from the man who gains converts to religion by similar means. All things considered, a

Christian, in my estimation, is altogether a spurious production. He is the product oftheospurious writings, and imposture, of the Fathers of the Church. Of course I only speak in relation to his religious character; for a virtuous and well disposed Christian, I respect as much as I respect any man; and many of this description are to be found amongst the Christian body. If a Christian is a spurious production, it is the fault of the Fathers of the Church, and not his own, that has made him so..

2008 IT " douleuh says, Never

to

"

be

Dr. Lardner, in the above citation, theless it must be allowed by all, that Pontius Pilate composed some memoirs concerning our Saviour, and sent them to the Emperor, whether Justin Martyr and Tertullian have given a just account of them or not. I have no hesitation myself in believing that Pilate did compose some memoirs of our Saviour, but what sort of memoirs were they? This is the important point settled. Were they a declaration that Jesus Christ really performed the miracles that were attributed to him, and that he rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven? Instead of this, it appears that Pilate merely informed Tiberius that a person of the name of Jesus was going about the country preaching gross nonsense in the shape of a new religion, and that, on account of his blasphemies and disturbances, he was put to death. This was the memoir composed by Pilate, and of this, the Fathers manufactured a splendid document, wherein the resurrection of Jesus Christ was declared to have taken place, and a full testimony given by Pilate, that all the things attributed to Jesus had actually been performed. The Fathers, at any rate, were not short of perception, for we may easily imagine, that the authority of a man like Pilate must have assisted them very much in proving the "truths of our Holy religion."

We may learn a great deal of the character of the

Fathers from the expression of Dr. Lardner's, viz. "whether Justin Martyr and Tertullian have given a just account of them or not. By just account he means true account; so that here is a tacit acknowledgement that these two distinguished, and most early Fa thers of the Church, have given a false account of the Letter of Pilate to Tiberius, and of the circumstances connected with it.

Let me again ask your lordship, how can we have confidence in men guilty of lying; that is to say, how can we believe the Bible to be the word of God, when those who tell us that it is so, were men guilty of lying and forging, and who possessed in every respect the characteristics of impostors?

The next instance of imposture, on the part of the Fathers, which I shall present to your lordship's attention, is to be found in the work of Du Pin, before mentioned, vol. II. ch. VII. sec. IV. as follows:-

We ought to reject the thirteen Epistles of Seneca to St. Paul, and of St. Paul to Seneca, as being apparently spurious, although St. Jerome and St. Augustine seem to have acknowledged them as genuine." For these Epistles are not written in St. Paul's or Seneca's style. Therein it is said that in the fire of the city of Rome under Nero, there were only one' hundred and thirty two houses burnt down, which is a manifest mistake, since it is certain that a great part of the city was consumed, according to the testimony of Tacitus. The date of these Letters is false.

contain nothing in them that is worthy either of

or St. Paul. Lastly, it is easy to perceive that they are only the exercises and fancies of a sprightly genius" which was willing to show its parts in forging these Letters.

"An author of our time having on one side acknow ledged the spuriousness of the Letters which we have

extant under the name of Seneca to St. Paul, and of St. Paul to Seneca; and yet on the other side, not daring tỏ say that St. Jerome and St. Augustine, who thought these Epistles to be genuine, were mistaken, hath supposed that the genuine Letters of St. Paul to Seneca, and of that philosopher to St. Paul, have been lost since their time, and that those which are now extant have been forged instead of them. But besides, that the esteem we have for these two Fathers ought not to hinder us from believing, but that they might be mistaken in a matter of so little consequence, it is to be observed, that they do not declare positively that these Epistles were genuine, but only that they were commonly so reputed, and that they were read under their name.

"Moreover it is an easy matter to demonstrate that the Letters which are now extant, and those which were in St. Jerome's time are the same. For that Father says, that Seneca wished in one of his Letters to be among his followers, what St. Paul was among the Christians, which has a great deal of resemblance with what is to be met with in the eleventh Letter of Seneca to St. Paul. It is not known when these Letters were forged, nor who it was that did them; and it is hard to deter mine whether it is upon the account of these Letters, that it is said in the spurious Acts of the Passion of St. Linus, that Seneca and St. Paul wrote several Letters to one another, or whether the narration of that author has given an occasion of the inventing of these Letters, as Cardinal Baronius conjectures.

"

Here then we have the testimony of Du Pin, in relation to the Letters of Seneca to St. Paul, and of St. Paul to Seneca, which the Fathers used to prove the "truths of our Holy religion.' Du Pin tells us that those Letters ought to be rejected as apparently spurious, and at the conclusion of his extract he says, "It is not known when these Letters were forged, or who it was that did them;" which is a small absurdity, for they must not only

be apparently spurious, but positively spurious, to talk about when they were forged. That they were forged however, he here admits, and this is enough for me.

It is natural to suppose that when men get into an awkward position, they will shuffle out of it as well as they can; hence a writer, alluded to by Du Pin, supposed that the genuine Epistles of Seneca and St. Paul had got lost, and that some body forged the present Epistles instead of them; and he supposed this, as Du Pin tells us, because he was afraid to say that St. Jerome and St. Augustine, who considered these Epistles genuine, were mistaken, and that they cited spurious writings. This writer had no occasion to suppose that these two infallible Fathers were mistaken: had he said that they looked upon the Epistles as valuable instruments to prove the "truths of our Holy religion," and it was a matter of very little consequence to them whether they were spurious or not, as long as they possessed this holy virtue, he would have said something approaching to the truth, and much more honest than what he did say. Du Pin however, rejects the idea of this author, and while he does so, he follows his example, and shuffles a little himself. He tells us that St. Jerome and St. Augustine "do not declare positively that these Epistles were genuine, but only they were commonly so reputed, and that they were read under their name." I contend that these two Fathers, must have known whether these Epistles were spurious or not. They lived at the time when great use was made of these Epistles ; they were read regularly in the churches, according to their own testimony, and they served immensely to prove the "truths of our Holy religion," and can it be supposed that they would be ignorant of their real character, while Du Pin, at a distance of nearly fifteen hundred years from that period, should discover that character? Is it likely that St. Jerome and St. Augustine, who lived at, or near the time when these Letters were forged, and who were two of the principal