arises—­were they really guilty of the barbarous crimes with which they were so often formally charged, and for the commission of which they were almost as often legally condemned, and punished with death?  Is it probable that persons at Rome, who had once belonged to these lovefeasts, should tell a deliberate falsehood that the Christians perpetrated these abominable vices, and that other persons in France, who had also been connected with these feasts, should falsely state that the Christians were guilty of the very same execrable crimes?  There was no collusion or connection whatever between these parties, and in making their statements, they could have no self-interested motive.  They lived in different countries, they did not make their statements within twenty years of the same time, and by making such statements they rendered themselves liable to be punished with death....  The same remark applies to the disclosures made, about 150 years after, by certain females in Damascus, far remote from either Lyons or Rome.  These make precisely the same statement—­that they had once been Christians, that they were privy to criminal acts among them, and that these Christians, in their very churches, committed licentious deeds.  The Romans would never have so relentlessly persecuted the Christians had they not been guilty of some such atrocities as were laid to their charge.  There are on record abundant proofs that the Romans, from the earliest account we have of them, tolerated all harmless religions—­all such as were not directly calculated to endanger the public peace, or vitiate public morals, or render life and property unsafe....  So well known were those horrid vices to be carried on by all Christians in their nocturnal and secret assemblies, and so certain it was thought that every one who was a Christian participated in them, that for a person to be known to be a Christian was thought a strong presumptive proof that he was guilty of these offences.  Hence, persons in their preliminary examinations, who, on being interrogated, answered that they were Christians, were thought proper subjects for committal to prison....  Pliny further indicates that while some brought before him, on information, refused to tell him anything as to the nature of their nocturnal meetings, others replied to his questions as far as their oath permitted them.  They told him that it was their practice, as Christians, to meet on a stated day, before daylight, to sing hymns; and to bind themselves by a solemn oath that they would do no wrong; that they would not steal, nor rob, nor commit any act of unchastity; that they would never violate a trust; and that they joined together in a common and innocent repast.  While all these answers to the questions of the Proconsul are suggestive of the crimes with which the Christians were charged, still they are a denial of every one of them....  The whole tenor of historical facts is, however, against their testimony, and the Proconsul did not believe