a person as Jesus Christ never existed. It would be very difficult to prove the non-existence of any person, even the most fabulous; and must also be difficult to prove the non-existence of Jesus Christ, considering the want of materials: but, since you were convinced that he was a fabulous person, all that was necessary for you to do, was to state plainly that you did not believe in his existence, with your reasons for doubting it, and then to call upon Christians to prove that he had existed and was a real person. They, as the assertors of this and of his marvellous works, were bound to prove that he was a real person; if they could not prove this, their assertions and stories concerning him were worth very little. If his existence cannot be made quite evident, it is very clear (if he ever did exist) that he has been but an obscure person, and no way entitled to the praises which have been heaped on him; and since all the labours of so industrious a writer as Mr. Beard cannot collect evidence to prove that he was a real person, his existence is still doubtful.

If Mr. Beard had examined the Evangelists with half of the critical acumen with which he seems to have sifted your arguments, he would have found them to be very imperfect writings. Under the examination of so able a critic, their errors and imperfections would soon be made manifest; but he has employed his abilities in defending superstitious dogmas unworthy of his notice, and in maintaining the character of writings inferior to his own. These writings would soon fall to the ground if not defended by men of more abilities than their authors. The obscurity of the first century of the Church history is but little to its credit as a divine religion. Had the life of Jesus Christ, and the early history of the Church, been in the hands of Mr. Beard, they would have been much better written than they are. Had the writers of the Gospels possessed abilities equal to his, and taken as much pains in writing as he has done in controversy, they would have written incomparably better books than they have done; and thus have saved the world much time and trouble; and have prevented a great part of the religious controversies and quarrels, which have arisen out of their ignorance and inaccuracy. Mr. Beard has displayed much zeal and care in the cause of Christ; but after all that he has written on the subject, the matter in dispute remains nearly in the same state as before the controversy began; he has not proved that Jesus Christ was a real person who did exist; neither has it been proved that he was a fictitious character who never existed; nor does it seem possible (for want of evidence) to prove either the one or the other. This may however suggest a reflection, that, if Jesus had really been so great a person as is asserted, and sent on so important a mission as is pretended, his existence would hardly have been left a matter of doubt or uncertainty; farther discussion on that subject would be almost useless, as little new matter can be brought

forward. The early history of the Church is so obscure, that you can hardly satisfy your readers whether there is any truth in the history of Jesus or not. If you are to continue the controversy with Mr. Beard, it would be a subject of some importance to examine the intrinsic merit of the four canonical Gospels as they stand, to weigh the credibility of the stories they relate concerning Jesus Christ, the value of the miracles ascribed to him, the nature of the instructions he gave, and the use of his mission and labours to mankind. If the instructions ascribed to him in the Gospels are clearly for the benefit of the world, they ought to be respected, whoever gave or wrote them; if they are evidently pernicious, they ought to be condemned, although it were certain. that Jesus gave them and the Evangelists wrote them. Such an enquiry might be of as much importance as to dispute about the existence of Jesus Christ, when there is so little evidence to settle the question.

Mr. Beard seems hardly aware, that, even if he could prove that Jesus Christ was a real person, it were doing but very little for Christianity; it would still be as nécessary as ever to prove the wonderful stories related conce: ning him, particularly his resurrection and appearances after it. These are so like many other kindred stories (common among ignorant people) about ghosts appearing after cases of violent death, that, as told in the Evangelists, they are quite undeserving of credit. They are evidently stories written from reports, and seem to have been raised by some frenzied women, who, in sorrow for the death of a favourite leader, were wandering about in the morning twilight, and fancied they saw him. This they had reported to his melancholy followers, whose state of mind and previous belief about a heavenly kingdom, made them readily believe such a story, and ardently propagate it; but the loose, imperfect, and contradictory manner in which these stories are told can prove nothing. There is not as much evidence for any of these incredible tales related about Jesus, as would establish the truth of the most ordinary fact; and miraculous events resting on such authority are utterly unworthy of belief.

If Mr. Beard would endeavour to clear up some of the objections against the Evangelists stated in Clarke's Letters and in the Critical Remarks on the Truth and Harmony of the Gospels, in a satisfactory manner, he would confer an obligation on some Christians, whose faith has been disturbed by these objections; and as the authors of these books can have no wish to remain in error, they would certainly attend to his arguments, and enter into discussion with a desire to arrive at the truth, more than with the pride of gaining a victory.

It is much to be regretted, that God has not revealed his will to man in a manner so clear and distinct, as to put an end to

error or even doubt. Will Mr. Beard inform us, why he has not done it? Why he has given a revelation so contradictory and imperfect? Why Divine Wisdom was so long in devising a remedy for the evils which afflict mankind? And why that remedy has been found so ineffectual when applied? The benefits arising from it are as questionable as its origin, although it has been in operation for 1800 years.

You seem to consider Christianity as the worst of all superstitions, and Mr. Beard considers it as human nature's best solace and support. I apprehend you are both at the extremes, and that much may be said on both sides.* I readily admit, that to many it does give comfort and support in distress; but the solace it gives is so much mixed with doubt, that it often makes men hate one another on account of opinion, and has made many a melancholy wretch put an end to existence. These are but slight proofs of a divine origin. Other systems of religious devotion seem also to give the same kind of satisfaction to the minds of their votaries, or else they would not be so ardently cherished, and supported with so much care and trouble. Hindoo devotees and Mahometan dervishes could give ample testimony, and personal proof, that their respective religions are not destitute of comfort and solace. Infidelity has also its comforts in store. The absence of superstitious fears from the minds of Materialists, yields them a peaceful satisfaction, which few believers seem aware of, and cannot therefore appreciate. There are also many evils, both domestic and public, arising out of religion, which unbelief does not produce, though it does not claim perfection: but the majority of mankind in cases of sorrow and misfortune will always find solace in devotion, owing probably to our nervous organization, our hopes and fears. The human mind in general is prone to superstition, as there is sorrow and misery in life, they seek for happiness in a life to come; to this there could be few objections, were it not the dogmatical manner in which it is asserted and maintained.

I think it rather unfortunate, that Deists and Unitarians should be so ready to quarrel and abuse one another. As Unitarians have been but recently tolerated, and as Deists are only allowed to speak by sufferance, they ought rather to be more friendly to each other, and reserve their strength for united defence against the Established Church, a powerful enemy, who would very willingly strangle them both, and would be cheerfully assisted in so good a work by most of the Dissenters. Unitarianism has doubtless many faults; but yet it seems the most moderate and rational

Mr. Beard is reported to have said at a late Public Meeting of the Unitarians, held at Bolton, in Lancashire, that he would defend Christianity if he were convinced that it were erroneously founded. Such an expression was our triumph over him and his fellow Unitarians.-R. C.

system of religion of the present day. The existence of a body of Unitarians fills up part of the chasm between orthodox Christianity and Deism, and serves to lessen the odium which would fall upon sceptics alone; and the existence of societies of Deists must greatly remove the odium from Unitarianism, by displaying something which orthodox believers consider much worse.

Yours truly,

ROBERT AFFLECK.

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE REPUBLICAN."

SIR, Yarmouth, May 27, 1826. In the last note to my paper, you require me to shew "that such a sect (as Christians) did exist in the first century, and that such a person as Jesus Christ did exist in Judea, in the first thirty years of that century:" therefore, I have attempted to "clear up this difficulty" in this letter. My first proposition I choose to state thus-That a person named Jesus, called Christ or Jesus Christ, did exist in Judea, in the reign of Tiberius, the Roman Emperor; in proof of which, I allege the following evidence:I. The passage in Tacitus, which, being well known to yourself and readers, I think it unnecessary to quote it here.

II. The truth of the passage in Tacitus" is confirmed by the diligent and accurate Suetonius, who mentions the punishment which Nero inflicted on the Christians, a set of men who had embraced a new and criminal superstition." The testimony alluded to by Gibbon is this: "the Christians were punished; a surt of men of a new and magical superstition." There is also the following in Suetonius' life of Claudius: "He banished the Jews from Rome, who were continually making disturbances, Chrestus being their leader." By reason of the word Chresto being put for Christo, some learned men have questioned whether this alludes to Christ; therefore, I shall not put much stress thereon.

III. Pliny's letter and Trajan's rescript.§

IV. Three passages, which are quoted in my last letter from the writings of Josephus, the supposed Jewish historian, who was born about A. D. 37. I shall now attend to some of your notes on my paper. The few words, to which your first note applies, might be thrown out without detriment to the preceding argument; this, indeed, looks much like an attack upon the weak side of a question. Let us take another view of this weighty

• Tacit. Ann. lib. xv. c. 44. Lard. vol. iii. p. 611. Repub. vol. xii. No. 26. p. 824. + Gibbon, chap. xvi. Suet. Nero, chap. xvi. Lard. vol. iii. p. 620. Pliny, b. x. letter 97. Repub. vol. xii. p. 825.

argument-the silence of the Fathers before Eusebius. Justin Martyr appeals to the writings of Josephus, but does not directly quote them; the Antiquities are mentioned, but not cited, by Tertullian, he refers to the books against Apion merely for a point in chronology, and there is no proof that the Antiquities and Jewish War were ever read by him; Clement of Alexandria quotes the Antiquities only once, and that for a chronological point; Origen is the sole ancient Father, before A. D. 300, that can be said to have made any citations from the writings of Josephus as authorities for any thing relating to Christianity; and why? Because he is the only Father, before Eusebius, that had opposed the heathen enemies of Christianity, and against whom these citations are alleged. This is the sum total of the negative evidence drawn from the silence of the ancient Fathers: for, unless it be shewn that the Antiquities of Josephus was known to the other Fathers, and read by them, their silence can be no negative argument. Since Origen has four citations from the writings of Josephus, why has he not expressly called him a Jew, if he were a Jew, in some one of them? After having quoted such remarkable testimonies, as those are, of John the Baptist and James the Just, how came Origen twice to affirm that Josephus did not receive Jesus as Christ? He could only mean in the orthodox Christian sense of the word; as I think I have shewn in my former letter. How came he not to take any notice of the testimony of Christ in the passage relating to James the Just, which he has thrice cited, twice against Celsus? If there were, then, no other mention of Jesus Christ by Josephus, Origen, most probably, would have noticed the words, "brother of Jesus, who was called Christ," as very remarkable. How will you account for those clear allusions to the disputed passage, as shewn by Whiston, which I gave in my former letter, and which follow one of Origen's citations from Josephus? How came Origen to express surprise that Josephus had ascribed the destruction of Jerusalem to James the Just and not to Jesus Christ? Were Josephus a Jew, surely Origen could not expect that he would have attributed the calamities of the Jews to the death of Jesus Christ! As it appears there are not more than four or five Christian Fathers who have mentioned the writings of Josephus, before Eusebius, how will you account for this apparent neglect, this evident unfavourable opinion of them? Mr. Carlile states in his second note that the Ebionite Christians were the first orthodoxy;" he may be right; and it is a reasonable conjecture that the disputed passage was quoted by the "first orthodoxy" writers; and perhaps his object was to urge their silence. But, unfortunately, there are no "first orthodoxy" writings extant more ancient than the time of Eusebius. Some of the writings of Josephus are not come down to us; for, as I have before said, Theodoret and Jerome mention a Commentary on Daniel, written by Josephus: and Photius speaks of a treatise

66