three or four divines of the church of England, who have entertained more favourable thoughts of the matter.

Dr. Parker, though he would not, as he says, lay any great stress upon the story or letters, yet adds, that he could see no ground to suspect it of forgery; and the weightiest objections that are made against it are too light to weigh any thing with him; and elsewherek, "I cannot find any thing that may in "the least shake or impair the credit of the story. Nay, the ❝contents of our Saviour's letter agree so exactly with the "whole design of his life in the Gospels, as by that alone to give itself considerable authority, viz. to put off the exercise "of his power, and obscure the reputation of his glory as much "as he could, till after his resurrection." Accordingly he endeavours in both the places referred to, to answer the objections which are urged against the Epistles, and to offer arguments for their genuineness.

66

Dr. Cave declares it as his opinion, "That so ancient a mo"nument of Christianity ought not to be rejected, which as it “contains no evidences of an imposture, nor any thing unwor"thy of Christ, so also is delivered down to us as genuine by "Eusebius, and several others of the ancients." He adds, that all the arguments against it are trifling, and endeavours to answer them.

Dr. Grabe urges several arguments for the Epistle m, and proposes to answer all that is said against it, though, says he, "I do not hereby own that they are undoubtedly genuine,” but leave the matter in doubt.

On the other hand Cocus", Rivet, Chemnitius P, Osiander 9, Walther, Father Simons, Du Pint, the present archbishop of Canterbury ", Mr. Spanheim the younger, Mr. Fabritius, and Mr. Le Clerc 2, besides many others, have judged the

whole story and the Epistles spurious, and have several of them by good arguments demonstrated them to be so.

CHAP. II.

The Epistles and History of our Saviour and Abgarus proved spurious by several arguments, viz. Because there is no intimation nor mention of them by the apostles or writers of the first three centuries. Christ's Epistle spurious, because after its publication by Eusebius it was universally rejected; and because it contains several things later than the time of our Saviour; because it contains somewhat contrary to Christ's character, and mentions Christ's ascension. HAVING in the former chapter proposed the opinions of several learned men concerning these Epistles and History, I proceed now,

III. To offer that which seems to me most probable in the matter, and without a prolix and tedious repetition of what has been already said, to discuss the subject in as clear and compendious a manner as I can.

That the above-mentioned letters and history were in the archives or records of Edessa, cannot, I think, be reasonably doubted by any who are acquainted with the character of Eusebius, and the impartiality of his history. He positively asserts, that he himself received them out of the archives of that city, ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχείων ἡμῖν ληφθείσων, (unless for ἀρχείων perhaps we should rather read agxaíwv, and so Eusebius only mean,* that they of his time received them from the primitive or elder Christians,) though it does not so evidently appear, as it is presumed always, that Eusebius was at Edessa, and there transcribed them, much less that he translated them into Greek out of Syriac, as Dr. Cave, the present archbishop of Canterbury, and most who have lately wrote on this subject have supposed, being led into the mistake by following the Latin translation of Valesius, without due regard to the original of Eusebius. That which is most probable is, that Eusebius himself never was at Edessa, because he does not assert it, which he would very probably have done, if he really had been there; and that he did not translate these Epistles himself out of Syriac into

Greek, because it is, I think, very evident, that he did not understand that language a. This being premised, I shall offer the following arguments against the genuineness of these Epistles and History, viz.

ARG. 1. The Epistles and History of our Saviour and Abgarus are spurious and apocryphal, because they are not referred to, or mentioned, either in the now received Gospels, or by any writer or writers of the three first centuries after Christ. It is true indeed, there were many transactions in the life of Christ not mentioned in our present Gospels, nor was it the intention of the authors to publish every thing he said and did; but it is on the other hand as disagreeable to their design to omit a history so very remarkable as this, than which nothing, if true, could have a greater tendency to raise men's opinion of our Saviour: but that which seems to make this argument undeniable, is, that there was the most urgent necessity for the apostles to have published this history, because a controversy was arose not only between them and the believing Jews, but even between themselves, Whether the Gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles at all, or whether it was not only to be confined to the Jews? Now, if this history were true, and known to the apostles, as there could not have been any foundation for this controversy, so, if it had arose, this Epistle of Christ must soon have ended it, seeing he there expressly appoints the preaching of the Gospel to this Gentile king and his city. I conclude it therefore a forgery after Christ's time, and consequently apocryphal. Add to all this the prevailing opinion among the ancients, that Christ himself never wrote any thing. Thus Origen b, Jerome, and Austind, in so many words assure us; and the last particularly writing against an Epistle under the name of Christ, which the Manichees boasted of, thus reasonse; "If there really be any such letter, how “comes it to pass that it is not publicly read, and received in "the church with the highest regard by those who are the suc"cessors of the apostles?" The Epistle therefore of Christ to Abgarus, and consequently the whole history, not being men

a Vid. Cleric. jam cit.

b Contr. Cels. 1. 1. p. 34.

c Comment. in Ezek. xliv.

d De Consens. Evang. lib. 1. c. 7.

t. opp. 4.

e

Contr. Faust. Manich. 1. 28. c. 4. t. opp. 6. See the passage at large above, Part II. Chap. XV.

tioned by our evangelists, nor any of the primitive writers till Eusebius, and expressly rejected by pope Gelasius, I conclude to be apocryphal by Prop. IV. V. VI. Part I.

ARG. 2. I argue against this Epistle under the name of Christ, viz. that it was a spurious piece, because even after the publication of it by Eusebius, it was universally rejected. It does not appear that the credit and zeal of that historian procured it any respect, but on the contrary, as it was not known in the three preceding centuries, so it was as much disregarded in the fourth, no one writer of that century having made any mention of it, except only Ephraem Syrus and Darius Comes, though I much question, whether that Epistle under his name to Austin be genuine, because that father (as in the place now cited) knew nothing of any letter under the name of Christ, of which that Epistle, if there had been any such one, must have informed him. Now hence I argue, that if the story of Eusebius had been genuine, concerning the communication between Christ and Abgarus, it would have been regarded by Lactantius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory, Jerome, or some of the writers of that century; every one who had credited Eusebius's account must have received the Epistle with the greatest veneration, and undoubtedly it would have been admitted into the canon of the books of the New Testament, and established at the council of Laodicea, which was soon after his time, and determined concerning the canonical books. But on the contrary we find nothing of this, but an entire silence, as much as in the former ages, and therefore I conclude it apocryphal by Prop. IV. V. and VI. I might add here, that the story of Eusebius appears the more evidently to be discredited and disregarded, in that it was now, when he published it, the time when the Arian controversy was come to a great height, and it cannot be thought but those who were warm against the Arians, would have urged the testimony of Abgarus against them in his letter, where he confesses Christ to be either God, or the Son of God, if they had looked upon it as genuine.

ARG. 3. The Epistle under the name of our Saviour to Abgarus is apparently spurious and apocryphal, inasmuch as it relates that to have been done by Christ, which could not pos

sibly have been done till a considerable time after Christ's ascension. The instance which I assign of this is, that in the beginning of the Epistle a passage is cited out of St. John's Gospel, which was not written till a considerable time after our Lord's ascension: the words are, Abgarus, you are happy, forasmuch as you have believed on me whom you have not seen; for it is written concerning me, That those who have seen me should not believe on me, that they who have not seen might believe and live. This is a manifest allusion to those words of our Saviour to Thomas, John xx. 29. Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed. Here indeed that, which the Epistle says, is written concerning Christ, but nowhere else besides: Valesius indeed says, the words of the prophet Isai. vi. 9. are like to this supposed citation of Christ f; but though he did not believe it himself, Dr. Grabe greedily swallows it as a sufficient answers, whereas nothing can be more evidently a mistake; for besides that the words of the prophet there (viz. Hear ye indeed, but understand not, and see ye indeed, but perceive not) are not at all like to the citation in this Epistle, it is observable that our Saviour has several times in the Gospels cited these words of the prophet quite different from what they are in this Epistle, both as to the words and sense, but exactly as they are in the prophet; and so also has St. Paul more than once; see Matt. xiii. 14. John xii. 40. Acts xxviii. 26. Rom. xi. 8. Dr. Caveh and Dr. Parkeri, being aware of the insufficiency of this evasion, do, with no greater probability, solve the difficulty, by supposing, that the citation in the Epistle respects not one particular prophecy, but many, concerning the stubbornness and infidelity of the Jews. But this is evidently a conjecture to serve an hypothesis. I conclude therefore, that seeing the Gospel of John was wrote long after Christ's ascension, this Epistle could not be written by Christ, and consequently is to be judged apocryphal by Prop. X.

ARG. 4. It is no small evidence of the spuriousness of this Epistle under the name of Christ, that Christ is made therein

f Annot. in Euseb. 1. 1. c. 13.

Spicileg. Patr. tom. 1. p. 322. h Histor. Literar. in Christo, p. 3.

i Demonstrat. of the Law of Nature, &c. preface, p. 37.