ページの画像
PDF
ePub

" those of Ephefus, or Chalcedon; not in those confeffions "made at Sardica, Antioch, Seleucia, Sirmium, &c. It is "not mentioned in several confeffions of faith delivered by "particular perfons; not in that of Eufebius Cæfarienfis,

[ocr errors]

presented to the Council of Nice ; not in that of Marcel"lus, Bishop of Ancyra, delivered to Pope Julius; not in "that of Arius and Euzoius, prefented to Conftantine. ; not " in that of Acacius, Bishop of Cæfarea, delivered in the fy"nod of Seleucia; not in that of Euftathius, Theophilus, "and Sylvanus, fent to Liberius: there is no mention of it "in the Creed of St. Bafil; in the Creed of Epiphanius, Gelafius, Damafus, Macarius, &c. It is not in the Creed "expounded by St. Cyril, though fome have produced that "Creed to prove it. It is not in the Creed expounded by "St. Auguftine h; not in that other', attributed to St. Au(C gustine in another place; not in that expounded by Maxi"mus Taurinenfis; nor that fo often interpreted by Petrus "Chryfologus; nor in that of the Church of Antioch, deli"vered by Caffianus *; neither is it to be feen in the MS. "Creeds fet forth by the learned Archbishop of Armagh. It "is affirmed by Ruffin, that in his time it was neither in the "Roman, nor the Oriental Creeds." Thus far Bifhop Pearson. The certainty of all which may be easily perceived by any one, who will be at the pains to fearch into these antient books, or but caft his eye upon that collection which the prefent Lord Chief-Juftice, Sir Peter King, has made of all the Creeds within the three firft centuries ". This article therefore, concerning the defcent of Chrift into hell, cannot be supposed to be one of thofe concerning which Thaddeus is faid in this history to have preached at Edeffa, and therefore the words naten eis tòv ädrv, i. e. he defcended into hell, could

[blocks in formation]

not be the language of this Apostle, but of fome perfon long after his time; whence it most undeniably follows, that this whole history in the Edeffene archives is fpurious and Apocryphal. Prop. X.

CHA P. IV.

The main Objection against the preceding Proof anfwered, taken from the Credit of Eufebius. A Character of that Historian. A Conjecture that this Hiftory is an Interpolation into the Works of Eufebius. Several Arguments to support this Conjecture. A Fragment concerning Chrift's Picture which he fent to Abgarus, taken out of the Orthodoxographa. The Story of the Picture common among the Writers of the fixth and following Centuries. A Digreffion out of Monfieur Durant concerning several Pictures of Chrift, made in his Lifetime.

HE moft confiderable, and indeed only objection that

THE
Tan be made against the foregoing proof, is the credit

of Eufebius, who relates the story, and is fo universally reputed an historian of the most accurate judgment and perfect fincerity. To which I answer, either,

1. That Eufebius was in this matter too credulous, and betrayed too easily into the belief of that, which, if he had more carefully examined, he would have as eafily rejected. This has been a fault often charged upon this learned writer of Chriftian antiquities. No one, fays Scaligera, has contributed more to the Chriftian history, and no one is guilty of more miftakes. And in another place, If a perfon's learning is to be judged of by his reading, nobody can deny Eufebius the charac

a Elench. Trihær. c. 29. b In Chronic. Eufeb. 8. Sce P a particular account of Eufebius and his character in Father Maimbourg's Hiftory of Arianifm, in

French, tom. i. l. 1. p. 32, &c. and Valefius's Life of Eufebius, prefixed to his Ecclefiaftical Hiftory.

ter

ter of a learned man; but if he is to be efteemed learned, who has fhewn judgment, together with his reading, Eufebius is not fuch. It is certain, notwithstanding all that can be faid for him, there are too many instances in his works both of partiality and credulity, to fay no worse, befides that he frequently trufts too much to his memory. I fhall omit inftances of this fort, being much more willing they should be obferved by others, than enlarged on by me. In the main he is certainly a good hiftorian; and though there be feveral mistakes in his works, yet there feems to me none more confiderable than this which we are now upon, if indeed it was really his; for,

2. I offer it as a probable conjecture, that this chapter in the works of Eufebius, containing these two Epiftles, viz. the Letter of Abgarus to Chrift, and his Reply, with the fubfequent history of Thaddeus at Edessa, was not really written by Eufebius, but foifted into his works, and an interpolation not made till the latter end of the fourth, or perhaps the fifth century. I am apprehenfive a conjecture of this fort will seem surprising, but I hope not improbable to those, who will impartially confider the following remarks, viz.

1.) That the article of the descent of Chrift into hell has been proved not only to have been an invention after the Apofiles' time, but even after the time of Eufebius. For this I refer the reader to the proof just now brought of this matter out of Bishop Pearson and Sir Peter King; no mention at all being made of it till the latter end of the fourth century, in Ruffin's Expofition, whereas Eufebius lived in the beginning of it. It follows therefore, that unless Eufebius could speak of these things or doctrines not yet known in his time, that this history was interpolated or inferted into his works after his time. That which mightily ftrengthens this argument is, that neither in the Nicene Creed, which was fettled and approved by Eufebius, as well as the other Bishops there; nor even in that which Eufebius himself tendered to them for their approbation, is there any the leaft intimation of this article *;

* See them both at large in Scultet. Medull. Patr. de Concil. Niceno, P. 405, &c. fo

C 2

fo that it is evident, that Eufebius being ignorant of it, it was foifted into his works.

2.) That this history is an interpolation into Eufebius, feems evident by confidering the context and feries of the hif tory preceding. In order to which I observe, that the defign of the first book, of which this is the last chapter, is to treat concerning Chrift and things relating to his time; and having in the preceding chapter juft mentioned our Saviour's Apostles, he proposes to defer the confideration of them and their actions after Chrift's afcenfion; which is accordingly the main fubject of the second book. Now I fay, for Eufebius here to bring in the ftory of Thaddeus, which was after Chrift's afcenfion, is to contradict himself, and break in upon his own defign and order of history, which he proposed; wherefore I conclude this an interpolation, and the rather, becaufe Eufebius exprefsly fays, in the beginning of the fecond book, that he had only related those things which concerned the hiftory of our Saviour, and the choice or nomination of his Apoftles, in the first book; but now, fays he, I proceed to thofe things which happened after his afcenfion. But how is it poffible he could have faid this, if he had juft before been writing concerning the acts of Thaddeus at Edeffa, which were after Chrift's afcenfion? Nor can it be objected, that. Eufebius relates the history of Thaddeus there, because it was connected with the hiftory of the intercourse between Christ and Abgarus, feeing it is evident that the hiftory of Chrift and Abgarus was introduced on account of the history of Thaddæus, and not the hiftory of Thaddeus on account of the history of Chrift. It is therefore evident all this chapter must be an interpolation; to confirm which yet further I observe,

3. That Eufebius does, in the next book, viz. c. I. when he is relating what happened to, and was done by, the Apoftles after our Saviour's afcenfion, relate this history in short, but without any, fo much as one, of those circumstances, by which I have above proved the hiftory to be fpurious and fuppofititious. Now this would have been perfectly needless, if it be fuppofed that he had a few lines before wrote the fame history,

history, and fuch a repetition as I may fafely challenge any one to fhew in an hiftorian of any value. It is true indeed, he is made to refer to the former place; but this was necessary to be interpolated upon the fuppofition of the former being fo.

4. Such interpolations have very frequently been made into the writings of the Fathers. Mr. Daillé a has made a large collection of inftances to this purpose; I fhall only mention one or two in the books of Eufebius: for inftance, fuch I take that to be (Hift. Eccl. lib. 3. cap. 36.), where Papias is applauded as μάλιςα λογιώτατο καὶ τῆς γραφῆς εἰδήμων, i. e. a perfon of eminent judgment and discretion, and knowledge in the Scriptures; and yet a few pages after he says, he was pode oμixçòs tòv vev, a perfon of an exceeding low and mean genius; which being a direct contradiction to the foregoing (but his just character) proves the former to be an insertion or note of fome careless reader. This is confirmed, in that Ruffin did not read it in his copies, as appears by his Latin Verfion, which wants it; as alfo that it is not to be found in the best, and most antient manuscript copies of Eufebius, which Valefius collated, viz. that which he calls The Medicaan; that of Cardinal Mazarine and Fuketius. In like manner in some copies of Eufebius's Chronicon he is made to fay, that the faft of Lent was inftituted by Telefphorus, and the observation of the Lord's Day by Pius, both Bishops of Rome c.

5. It was more easy for such an interpolation to be made, because it was the end of a book.

Upon the whole, that which feems clear is, that the Epiftles and hiftory are fpurious, and that Eufebius in fome measure too eafily believed the report concerning them, though the large account of them in his first book be a plain corruption of fome writer after his time, and an addition to the history, as it is certain there were many fuch things in fucceeding ages: fome of them I have above mentioned out of Procopius, Euagrius, and Cedrénus, and shall now conclude this whole matter with a fragment which I find published by Jacob Gry

a Right Ufe of the Fathers, ch. 4. Annot. in Euf. ad h. 1.

Loc. cit. p. 44.

C 3

næus,

« 前へ次へ »