Could there be no supposeable reason for an omission, where the whole matter was intended but as an index, and was to be compressed on one single page; but that it must needs be dishonourable?

Reader, turn thine eye to page 43, and see what Dr. Smith can plead in excuse for his own sins of omission-where his matter occupies 60 pages. There you will see that he holds it authority sufficient for one of his propositions: (to wit-that the OCCASIONS on which the miracles were wrought-exempli gratiâ, the occasion of supplying more wine to fellows who were half seas over already: the occasion for cursing a figtree, the occasion for playing the devil with the pigs, were occasions WORTHY of the interposition of divine omnipotence, a proposition which surely must be as hard to prove as any contained in the Manifesto)-that it "has been shown with an abundance of evidence by numerous and well-known authors, to whom access is easy. Within the narrow limits of these pages, it is impossible to do justice to the argument: and surely it may be expected that every person who feels the infinite importance of the subject, will take the little pains necessary to obtain the requisite information."

Shall these, his own words! this, his own excuse! be good and valid for himself-and it is so: while nothing less than a dishonourably intended omission is to be charged on me, for not having defeated my own object-by making my Manifesto too much to be contained in a Manifesto: when the names of CONSTANTINE & THEODOSIUS were sufficient to refer any reader to the pages of a work so easy of access as Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: and when, for the name and instance of the emperor Anastatius, as not being so well known, nor to be found in a work so easy of access; I had supplied the reference, which in that more essential case alone seemed necessary, to the author, the volume, and the page where it is to be found?

And of this, the Doctor, after having in the title of this section designated it as a pretence, and in the section itself characterized it-as "the grossest untruth that could be imagined;" in the very next section and in the very next page, admits that it is indeed fairly transcribed from Dr. Lardner's translation of it. In that admission however, thrusting from himself the credit of fairness, which the admission might win for him, by the unfair and unworthy insinuation that I could not have become acquainted with the passage, but by means of a translation.

How far the piety and conscientiousness of CONSTANTINE,*

* Constantine had a father-in-law whom he impelled to hang himself: he had a brother-in-law whom he ordered to be strangled: he had a nephew of twelve or thirteen years only, whose throat he ordered to be cut: he had a son whom he

as guaranteed by the historical veracity and impartiality of his intimate friend EUSEBIUS, is positive evidence of the care and diligence which were exercised in making copies of the scriptures; or whether extraordinary "care and diligence in making copies of the scriptures," exercised by such pious and conscientious christians as Constantine and Eusebius-is not itself an extraordinarily suspicious circumstance against the chance of their remaining uncorrupted,-(as sure no man would think a treasure the more likely to remain untouched, for being under the extraordinary care and diligence of a known thief); or how far Dr. Smith can take upon himself to infer—what could, or could not have been "thought of by the emperor," are considerations which the reader will determine according to the bent of his own reflections.

I only claim his observance, that unmeasured as are the Doctor's charges against me, his amount of proofs as yet, stands at nought and carry nought.

beheaded: he had a wife whom he ordered to be suffocated in a bath; and so,
when he had made a clear house for himself, his mind took a serious turn. But
there was nothing in the religion of the ancient paganism, that could give
comfort to the conscience of a sinner,—the ancient paganism had no propitiation
for throat-cutting, no atonement for child-killing. Its terrible language was
Ah nimium faciles, qui tristia crimina cœdis
Fluminea tolli posse putetis aquâ

Non bove mactato cœlestia numina gaudent,
Sed quæ præstanda est, et sine teste fide.

OVID (as I remember.)

O! this would never do for Constantine-here was nothing for a sinner's hope to rest on; but the religion of the Galilean proclaimed that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin (1 John i. 7.), and Constantine became a christian. Christianity consequently became the religion of the state, and— "the terrors of a military force silenced the faint and unsupported murmurs of the pagans." Gibbon (as I remember). The exercise of the pagan religion was prohibited under pain of death, by an edict of the emperors Valentinian_and Marcian, in the year 451. See the edict of Theodosius, Gibbon, vol. 5. p. 15.

END OF SECTION II.

SECTION III.

ALTERATION OF THE GOSPELS IN THE REIGN OF ANASTASIUS.

"The passage from Victor, an obscure author, who wrote a Chronicle of about twelve pages, of which this sentence is an article, is indeed fairly transcribed from Dr. Lardner's translation of it," &c. "But, mark the honesty of this Manifesto writer." Well, o' God's name, mark his honesty!

"He copies the passage which makes for his purpose." Well, and what would you have said of him, if he had copied a passage which did not make for his purpose?

"And which he would in all reasonable probability, never have known of, had not that Christian advocate furnished him with it." And how could any body know of any thing, if nobody had furnished him with the knowledge of it? or what would the Doctor have said, if this bit of knowledge had been furnished for me by an infidel, or if I had supplied it purely from my own invention ?

"But he says not a syllable of the evidence which was before him in the very same page, of the total falsehood of the statement, as it is professed to be understood by some modern infidels." But suppose what was before him, seemed to him, to be no evidence at all.

I take this clause to comprehend a fair specimen of the Doctor's claims to the praise of candour, fairness, and integrity. His candour, in charging it to a want of honesty, that being confined to compress my whole quantum of matter within the border of the Manifesto, I had taken no notice of what I thought did not make for my purpose. His fairness, in implying that I had rejected evidence which was before me on the very same page of the total falsehood of the passage, when he knew that there was no such evidence, there to be rejected.-His integrity, in that for the dear sake of gratifying feelings which I shall never envy by flinging off the railing accusation of TOTAL FALSEHOOD OF STATEMENT, he has, ere he can take his breath, to recall his own fling, and to shuffle from it with the pitiful qualification of predicating total falsehood of the statement" as it is professed to be understood," of which every logician knows, that total falsehood is not predicable.

An illustration will exhibit this sophism in its true light:Suppose one had said "King Charles the First was barbarously murdered," and had been answered, "It is a total falsehood of statement," by an opponent who instantly shrunk from this giving of the LIE-DIRECT, into the COME-OFF,- a total falsehood of statement as it is professed to be understood." What would be the inference, but that such an answerer had more the manners of

a doctor of divinity, than of a gentleman, a greater prurience of abuse, than pregnancy of argument?

I have not then made a false statement: I have not made a misquotation, nor put forth a misrepresentation, no, nor the shadow of a misrepresentation; and he whom this good Christian Divine politely calls "first-born of calumny, and greatest liar that ever set pen to paper," is as far from being such, as the sun's disc from darkness, or a Christian Doctor's heart from charity.

or

As for the error (certainly not FALSEHOOD) which may, may not attach to any man's understanding of a particular statement, I hope I have as good a right to maintain my own understanding, as I leave to all mankind the uncontrolled exercise of theirs and could not have done so more fairly, more ingenuously, and more honestly, than by putting forth, with the statement which I fairly quoted, a reference to the work, volume, and page where it would be found; and that, not by itself alone, as I first found it, but accompanied by the most powerful array of objection and controversy that the wit of man could possibly bring against it. I left these therefore to all the possible weight they could have on the mind, which my reference would direct to them: on my own mind, neither all their weight, with all that Dr. Smith can add to their weight, could overbalance the preponderance of the matter in its full effect to the intent for which I quoted it.

Reader, think'st thou, that one so ready to bring the coarsest accusations in the coarsest language, would know what fairness, ingenuousness, and honesty were, when they stood before him in the enemy of his faith?

Now, reader, see and judge, on what evidence this learned Divine would bring the most frightful charge, that could be alleged against any man, who was possessed of moral sensibility, and had some claim to be considered as good a scholar and as able a critic as himself.

What was the evidence before me, in the very same page, of the total falsehood of the statement, as it is professed to be understood by some modern infidels? Why, the very next sentence, after the statement itself, which I had fairly quoted, is Dr. Lardner's admission, that "Some have hence argued, that the copies of the New Testament-of the gospels at least― have not come down to us, as they were originally written, they having been altered in the time of the emperor Anastasius, who began his reign in the year 491, and died in 518." Lardner, vol. 3, p. 67.

And why might not I enroll myself among those who argue thus, (and among whom are names of not inferior renown to any of their opponents) sincerely believing as I do, that they have the best of the argument? Or why was it incumbent on me to

* In the works of Peter Annett, where it is given very incorrectly, but not falsely.

have introduced into my Manifesto the objections of my adversaries-objections which I myself did not consider of sufficient validity to defeat or to alter the effect of my proposition ?*

Or why should Dr. Lardner himself, have introduced any notice at all of the existence of such a passage, into his work, and have employed his great powers of argumentation, beating up for all the authorities, all the talent, learning, and ingenuity he could find in the world, to come "to the help of the Lord-to the help of the Lord against the mighty," if there were really no matter worth a consideration in this passage, or if there were sufficient evidence of its total falsehood-which is so far from being the case, that after making the best of all his apparatus in conflict against it, he conquers only, in his own reckoning, the conclusion, that

"These considerations, as seems to me, are sufficient to show that learned men have with good reason, generally looked upon this story of Victor as fabulous." (p. 68.)

A conclusion which leaves the strength of my position, unassailed. It is not evidence, but considerations, which have been brought against it-and considerations which, however sufficient they may seem to be to those who have the strongest possible interest in making the most of them, do not seem quite so sufficient to those who have considerations, of which they have quite as good an opinion, and which have not yet been put into the scales.

Or why should Dr. Lardner's conflicting opinion be evidence to me, when in other cases, I had known and experienced the fallibility, not merely of his reasoning, but of his integrity?

Where the glory of God was concerned, and an ugly fact stood bolt in the way of it, even Dr. Lardner would fight shy of letting us know its true dimensions, and leave no stone unturned to contravene, to conceal, suppress, or counteract its impression on our convictions. Victor Tununensis tells more than it is safe for Christian faith to know.-Of course then, "Victor is nobody," is the Christian argument, and Aye, but he has told it! is mine; and it's well for him that he is not to be found. Thus,

AMMONIUS SACCUS,

the most distinguished ornament of the second century, had taught, that all the Gentile religions, and even the Christian, were to be illustrated and explained by the principles of an universal philosophy, but that, in order to this, the fables of the priests were to be removed from Paganism, and the comments and interpretations of the disciples of Jesus from Christianity. Then Dr. Lardner could not bring himself to admit that Ammonius was a Christian Father. Fabricius had been equally illiberal, and indeed, I have found that learned author still less to be trusted with the reputation of those who differed from him, than Lardner. Mosheim had once been of the same judgment, as to the character of Ammonius; but with that greatness that always characterises a master mind, he afterwards saw reason to change his opinion, and did so. His reasons however, weigh little with Dr. Lardner, who opposes nothing to them, but mere assertion, unsupported by the smallest glimpse of evidence. The coalition between Platonism and Christianity in the second and third centuries, is a fact too fully proved, to be rendered dubious by mere affirmations."-Mosheim, vol. 1. p. 170, the Note.

Alas, the ravages of the religious Pyrexia are but too discernible upon the moral integrity, as well as on the physical capabilities, even of great and good minds, what must be expected then from a Rev. Dr. John Pye Smith, but such an answer as his is, to the Manifesto of the Christian Evidence Society?