ページの画像
PDF
ePub

any fuch one, muft have informed him. Now hence I argue, that if the ftory of Eufebius had been genuine, concerning the communication between Chrift and Abgarus, it would have been regarded by Lactantius, Athanafius, Epiphanius, Hilary, Bafil, Gregory, Jerome, or some of the writers of that century; every one who had credited Eufebius's account muft have received the Epiftle with the greatest veneration, and undoubtedly it would have been admitted into the Canon of the books of the New Teftament, and established at the Council of Laodicea, which was foon after his time, and determined concerning the Canonical books. But on the contrary we find nothing of this, but an entire filence, as much as in the former ages, and therefore I conclude it Apocryphal by Prop. LV, V, and VI. I might add here, that the ftory of Eufebius appears the more evidently to be difcredited and difregarded, in that it was now, when he published it, the time when the Arian controverfy 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 confeffes Chrift to be either God, or the Son of God, if they had looked upon it as genuine.

ARG. 3. The Epiftle under the name of our Saviour to Abgarus is apparently fpurious and Apocryphal, inasmuch as it relates that to have been done by Chrift, which could not posfibly have been done till a confiderable time after Chrift's ascenfion. The inftance which I affign of this is, that in the beginning of the Epiftle a paffage is cited out of St. John's Gofpel, which was not written till a confiderable time after our Lord's Afcenfion: the words are, Abgarus, you are happy, forafmuch as you have believed on me whom you have not seen; for it is written concerning me, That those who have seen me fhould not believe on me, that they who have not feen might believe and live. This is a manifeft allufion to those words of our Saviour to Thomas, John xx. 29. Bleffed are they who have not feen, and yet have believed. Here indeed that, which the Epiftle fays, is written concerning Chrift, but no where

elfe

elfe befides: Valefius indeed fays, the words of the Prophet Ifai. vi. 9. are like to this fuppofed citation of Christ2; but though he did not believe it himself, Dr. Grabe greedily swallows it as a fufficient answer', 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 Epiftle, it is obfervable that our Saviour has feveral 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 fense, but exactly as they are in the Prophet; and fo`also has St. Paul more than once; fee Matt. xiii. 14. John xii. 40. Acts xxviii. 26. Rom. xi. 8. Dr.,Cave and Dr. Parker, being aware of the infufficiency of this evalion, do, with no greater probability, folve the difficulty, by fuppofing, 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 ferve an hypothefis. I conclude therefore, that feeing the Gofpel of John was wrote long after Chrift's afcenfion, this Epiftle could not be written by Chrift, and confequently is to be judged Apocryphal by Prop. X.

ARG. 4. It is no small evidence of the spuriousness of this Epiftle under the name of Chrift, that Chrift is made therein to defer the curing of Abgarus, till after his afcenfion one of his Apostles fhould come and do it; for

1.) Chrift always immediately cured thofe who made believing applications here to him, as Abgarus is faid to do.

2.) It would not be much fatisfaction to Abgarus to be told of a cure to be wrought in an uncertain time to come, which confequently muft fhock his faith which he is fuppofed to have; and therefore Chrift would not write after this manner, when he could with one word fpeaking have performed the cure, and fo not only eftablifhed, but increafed his faith. This is to

Annot. in Eufeb. 1. 1. c. 13.
Spicileg. Patr. tom. I. p. 322.
Hiftor. Literar. in Chrifto,

P. 3.
d Demonftrat. of the Law of
Nature, &c. Preface, p. 37--

make

make Chrift act not only different from what he usually did, but contrary to the defigns of his kingdom and miffion, and therefore Apocryphal by Prop. VIII.

ARG. 5. The account of our Saviour's afcenfion in the Epiftle feems to be a further proof of its fpurioufnefs. It is there twice mentioned in very plain terms; but in the whole history of the Gofpels we do not find above one or two, and thofe very obscure intimations of this event before our Saviour's refurrection. There follows therefore one or other of thefe abfurdities hereupon, viz. either that Abgarus was more acquainted with this doctrine than Chrift's conftant Apoftles and companions were, or elfe, that Chrift was willing he should be fo; or if not, that he wrote to him that which he could not poffibly underftand; each of which being contradictions to known fact, prove the Epiftle to be Apocryphal by Prop. VIII.

CHA P. III.

Other Arguments against Abgarus's Epistle to Chrift, and the whole Hiftory, viz. The Improbability of a Heathen Prince's acknowledging Chrift's Divinity. A Contradiction in it. Several Improbabilities. The Article of Christ's Defcent into Hell, mentioned in this Hiftory, not known till several Centu➜ ries after Christ.

TH

HE preceding arguments feem evidently to conclude against the Epiftle; the firft of them indeed concludes equally against the Epiftle and the whole history; and by a juft confequence, whatever proves against the one, will prove against the other, the truth of both depending upon the same evidence. But it may not be amifs to add a few diftinct argu. ments also against the genuineness of the Epiftle of Abgaruş to Chrift, and the whole hiftory. As

1. It is exceedingly improbable, that a Heathen prince should so readily acknowledge the divinity of our Saviour, as Ab

garus

garus is made to do in his letter. Mr. Le Clerc's a remark on this matter seems very juft, as to the Greek words ör, où xì ô ☺còs—n viòs ei rỡ Oe8. The article, fays he, prefixed in Greek to the name God, fhews, that the author meant God the Father (Deus nario), which is a phrafeology not likely to have proceeded from a Heathen, who would rather have omitted the article, and faid seds, thou art fome God; the other way of expreffing being peculiar to those who believed in one God. Prop. VIII.

2. There feems to me in this Epistle a contradiction fo mani feft, as to demonftrate its fpurioufnefs. In the beginning of the Epiftle Abgarus is made to confefs his faith in Christ as God, or as the Son of God; in the latter end he invites Christ to dwell with him in his city, because of the malice of the Jews, who intended him mischief. This, I fay, is a plain contradiction; for had he really thought him God, he must certainly think him poffeffed of Almighty power, and confequently to be in no need of the protection of his city. This seems to me as clear demonftration, as fubjects of this fort are capable of receiving; nor am I fenfible of any objection that can be made, unless it be that Peter, who had confeffed him to be the Son of God, Matt. xvi. 16. yet when he came to be apprehended, thought it necessary to interpofe with human force to attempt his rescue, Matt. xxvi. 51. compared with John xviii. 10. To which it is easy to anfwer, that whatever opinion Peter, or indeed any of the Apostles, had of Chrift before this time, they feem now to have changed it, and by the prospects of his danger and death to have grown cool in their opinion of his Almighty power, elfe they would never all have forsaken him at his crucifixion as they did. But nothing of this can be fuppofed in the cafe of Abgarus, who cannot be imagined to have altered his fentiments in the interval of writing fo fhort an Epiftle. Prop. VII.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

3. Mr. Du Pin thinks it very improbable, that Abgarus

a Hift. Eccl. fec. 1. ann. 29. f. 13. where he well anfwers the only important objection that can be raised against the force of this

argument.

Hiftory of the Canon, Vol. II. c..6. §. 1.

Should

fhould at once offer half his kingdom to a person who was a ftranger to him.

4. It looks not a little fabulous, that upon Thaddeus's appearing before the king, he should see somewhat extraordinary in his countenance, which none of the company else could perceive. Eufebius calls it papa péya, a great vifion: Valefius renders it divinum nefcio quid, fome divine appearance. Prop. IX.

5. The account in the history, that Abgarus defigned to make war upon the Jews for crucifying Chrift, seems very unlikely; because it is plain he was prince only of a small mean city, and that at a vast distance from Judea, viz. in Arabia, and therefore could never be fo extravagant as to imagine himfelf able to destroy fo powerful a nation as the Jews then were, Prop. VIII, IX.

6. The account in the hiftory, that Thaddeus promised Abgarus that he would preach to him and his people concerning the beads of the Chriftian religion, proves the whole much later than it pretends to be, because he is there made to fay, that he would preach to them how Chrift κατέβη εἰς τὸν ᾅδην, καὶ διέσχισε φραγμὸν τὸν ἐξ αἰῶνα μὴ σχισθέντα καὶ ἀνέση, defcended into hell, and divided the partition which was never divided before. But this every one knows was a phrafeology, or doctrine, not known in the Church in the Apostles' days, nor till a long time after; and though it be an article in that called The Apofiles? Creed, yet it was not in the antient Creeds in the three firft centuries; and to use Bishop Pearfon's words on this article; "The firft place we find it used in was in the Church

of Aquileia, and the time we are fure it was used in the "Creed of that Church, was lefs (and but little lefs) than CC 400 years after Chrift. It is not to be found in the rules of faith delivered by Irenæus a, by Origen ", by Tertul lian. It is not expreffed in thofe Creeds which were "made by the Councils as larger explications of the Apoftles' Creed; not in the Nicene, or Conftantinopolitan; not in

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
« 前へ次へ »