ページの画像
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

thefe Epiftles; Jerome indeed feems to refer to the history in his Comment on Matthew ch. x. as does Darius Comes in an Epistle to Austin; and Pope Gelafius rejects among the spurious and Apocryphal books the Epiftle under the name of Chrift to Abgarus. In the following centuries there is more frequent mention of it. Procopius Cæfarienfis, who wrote about the year of Chrift DXXX. (whether a Chriftian or Pagan is not certain) in his hiftory of the Perfian war, relates, "That Abgarus, had been long afflicted with the gout, and "finding no relief from his Physicians, but hearing of the "miracles of Christ, sent to him, defired he would come and "live with him; and that upon his receiving an answer from “Chrift, he was inftantly cured. He adds, that our Saviour "in the end of his letter gave Abgarus affurance that his city "should never be taken by enemies, though he himself "queftions the truth of this." Euagrius, an ecclefiaftical writer in the latter end of the fixth century, appeals to this account of Procopius, and confirms the ftory of the city's never being to be taken, by fome inftances," as particularly "when Chofroes King of Persia, not crediting the common "rumour, that this city was impregnable, befieged it, but "that he failed in his attempt by means of a miracle which "was wrought by a picture of Chrift's face, which himself "impreffed upon a handkerchief, and fent to Abgarus at his "earnest request." Cedrenus adds to all the reft, that Christ fealed his letter with a feal confifting of seven Hebrew letters, the interpretation of which, fays he, is in Greek, ☺iš Otάdev, Javμa Detox, i. e. The divine miracle of God is feen. Thus much concerning the antient accounts. I proceed,

II. To give fome account of the fentiments of later writers concerning it. And in collecting these I obferve, that the whole ftory, as well as the Epiftles themselves, are generally reckoned by Proteftants and Papists to be spurious and Apocryphal.

[blocks in formation]

There are indeed fome few Romish writers, and 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 fee no ground to fufpect it of forgery; and the weightieft objections that are made against it are too light to weigh any thing with him; and elsewhere", "I cannot find any thing that may in the "leaft shake or impair the credit of the ftory. Nay, the contents "of our Saviour's letter agree fo exactly with the whole defign 66 of his life in the Gospels, as by that alone to give itself confi"derable authority, viz. to put off the exercife of his power, and "obfcure the reputation of his glory as much as he could, till

after his refurrection." Accordingly he endeavours in both the places referred to, to answer the objections which are urged against the Epiftles, and to offer arguments for their genuineness.

с

Dr. Cave declares it as his opinion," That fo antient a mo"nument of Christianity ought not to be rejected, which as it con"tains no evidences of an imposture, nor any thing unworthy of Chrift, fo alfo is delivered down to us as genuine by Eufebius, "and feveral others of the antients." He adds, that all the arguments against it are trifling, and endeavours to answer

[ocr errors]

them.

and

Dr. Grabe urges feveral arguments for the Epiftle “, proposes to anfwer all that is faid against it, though, fays he, I do not hereby own that they are undoubtedly genuine, but leave

the matter in doubt.

On the other hand Cocus, Rivet, Chemnitius, Ofi

[blocks in formation]

ander, Walther, Father Simon, Du Pin, the present Archbishop of Canterbury, Mr. Spanheim the younger, Mr. Fabritius, and Mr. Le Clerc, befides many others, have judged the whole ftory and the Epiftles fpurious, and have feveral of them by good arguments demonftrated them to be fo.

CHA P. II.

The Epiftles and Hiftory of our Saviour and Abgarus proved Spurious by feveral Arguments, viz. Because there is no Intimation nor Mention of them by the Apofiles or Writers of the first three Centuries. Chrift's Epiftle Spurious, because after its Publication by Eufebius, it was univerfally rejected; and because it contains feveral Things later than the time of our Saviour; because it contains fomewhat contrary to Chrift's Character, and mentions Chrift's Afcenfion.

HAV

AVING in the former Chapter proposed the opinions of feveral learned men concerning these Epiftles and Hiftory, I proceed now,

III. To offer that which feems 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 hiftory were in the archives or records of Edeffa, cannot, I think, be reasonably doubted by any who are acquainted with the character of Eu

[blocks in formation]

febius, and the impartiality of his hiftory. He pofitively af ferts, that he himself received them out of the Archives of that city, ἀπὸ τῶν ἀρχείων ἡμῖν ληφθείσων (unlefs for αρχείων perhaps we fhould rather read again, and fo Eufebius only mean, that they of his time received them from the primitive or elder Chrift→ ians) though it does not fo evidently appear, as it is prefumed always, that Eufebius was at Edeffa, and there transcribed them, much less that he translated them into Greek out of Syriack, 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 Tranflation of Valefius, without due regard to the original of Eufebius. That which is most probable is, that Eufebius himself never was at Edeffa, because he does not affert it, which he would very probably have done, if he really had been there; and that he did not translate thefe Epiftles himself out of Syriack into Greek, because it is, I think, very evident, that he did not underftand that language. This being premifed, I fhall offer the following arguments against the genuineness of these Epiftles and history, viz.

ARG. 1. The Epistles and History of our Saviour and Abgarus are fpurious and Apocryphal, because they are not re ferred 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 tranfactions in the life of Christ not mentioned in our prefent Gospels, nor was it the intention of the Authors to publifh every thing he faid and did; but it is on the other hand as difagreeable to their design to omit a history fo 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 feems to make this argument undeniable, is, that there was the most urgent neceffity for the Apoftles to have published this history, because a controversy was arofe not only between them and the believing Jews, but even between themfelves, Whether the Gospel was to be

2 Vid. Cleric. jam cit.

preached

preached to the Gentiles at all, or whether it was not only to be confined to the Jews? Now, if this hiftory were true, and known to the Apoftles, as there could not have been any foundation for this controverfy, fo, if it had arofe, this Epiftle of Christ must foon have ended it, feeing 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 antients, that Chrift himself never wrote any thing. Thus Origen, Jerome ", and Austin, in so many words affure us; and the last particularly writing against an Epiftle under the name of Chrift, which the Manichees boasted of, thus reafons"; "If there really be any fuch letter, "how comes it to pass, that it is not publickly read, and received "in the Church with the highest regard by those who are the "fucceffors of the Apostles?" The Epiftle therefore of Christ to Abgarus, and confequently the whole history, not being mentioned by our Evangelifts, nor any of the primitive writers till Eufebius, and expressly rejected by Pope Gelafius, I conclude to be Apocryphal by Prop. IV, V, VI. Part I.

ARG. 2. I argue against this Epiftle under the name of Chrift, viz. that it was a spurious piece, because even after the publication of it by Eufebius, it was universally rejected. It does not appear that the credit and zeal of that hiftorian procured it any respect, but on the contrary, as it was not known in the three preceding centuries, fo it was as much difregarded 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 Auftin be genuine, because that Father (as in the place now cited) knew nothing of any letter under the name of Chrift, of which that Epiftle, if there had been

2 Contr. Celf. ). 1. p. 34.. b Comment, in Ezek. 44. • De Confenf. Evang, lib. I. c. 7. t. opp. 4.

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

any

« 前へ次へ »