Gibbon makes much of the perplexity of Pliny as to how to proceed against the Christians. For since the life of that Roman had been employed in the acquisition of learning and the business of the world; since from the age of nineteen he had pleaded with distinction in the tribunals of Rome; therefore, from the ignorance of this Roman governor, the great historian of the Decline and Fall concludes that there were no general laws or decrees of the senate in force against the Christians previous to Pliny accepting the governorship of Bithynia. [10] There is nothing, however, in the circumstance of Pliny's ignorance to justify such a conclusion. It is not difficult to conceive how laws and decrees against the Christians could exist and yet a man employed as Pliny was have no technical knowledge of the _modus operandi_ of procedure against them. His very letter, quoted above, seems to recognize the existence of such laws before he went into Bithynia; for he pleads as an excuse for his ignorance of how to proceed in the business neither the non-existence, nor the newness of the laws, but merely the fact that he had never been present at the examination of Christians brought to trial previous to accepting the governorship of his provinces. In like spirit Gibbon points to the mildness of both the emperor and the governor as being against the idea that this persecution was very severe. Giving full credit for that mildness, what was the status of the Christians as to liability to persecution in Bithynia and Pontus after Pliny received the instruction of his master? (1) They were not to be sought after, that is, hunted down for the mere sake of destroying them; (2) anonymous complaints or libels were not to be entertained against them; (3) if brought before the judge and they would renounce their religion by supplicating the gods of Rome, they were to receive pardon. So far the tender mercies of Trajan extended. They could still be accused by any one bold enough to affix his name to the charge; and if the accused Christians refused to deny the faith, they were punished by sentence of death. When it is considered how bitter was the malice of their enemies, and how wide-spread the detestation of Christianity, it will be conceded that even in Bithynia and Pontus, notwithstanding the mildness of the emperor and the humanity of the governor, there was still left plenty of opportunity to vex the church and make persecution contribute to its destruction. I say even in Bithynia and Pontus this was the case; how much more was it so in those provinces where less humane magistrates than Pliny administered the laws, and who proceeded without asking for instruction from the emperor! In such provinces the saints were liable to be accused anonymously, put to the torture, not with a view to force from them a confession, but a denial of the charge, failing in which they were executed without mercy.