prerogative, that they should assent to his opinion in that matter (viz. declare him to be a God). But the Senate not approving it, refufed. Cæfar continued in the fame opinion, threatening those who were accufers of the Chriftians. In the other place, after having given an account of the miracles of Chrift, his cafting out devils, cleanfing lepers, raifing the dead, his crucifixion, refurrection, afcenfion, &c. he adds, All these things Pilate himself (who was in his confcience for following Chrift) tranfmitted to Tiberius Cæfar; and even the Cafars themselves had been Chriftians, if it had been confiftent with their fecular interefts, &c. This account of Tertullian is cited by Eufebius, both in his Chronicon" and in his Ecclefiaftical History, as genuine and authentick; as it is alfo by Jerome, though he mentions neither the name of Tertullian nor Eufebius. Now from all this I argue, that there were fome accounts of Chrift and his actions tranfmitted by Pilate to the Emperor. "Tertullian (fays Dr. Parker ) though a "Chriftian writer, durft never have prefumed to impofe upon "the Senate themselves with such a remarkable story, if he "were not able to prove it; and that he was, is evident from "Justin Martyr, who often appeals to the Acts of Pilate con"cerning the history of our Saviour, and requests the Emperor "ta fatisfy themselves from their own records concerning those "things that were reported of him.-That Pilate did send such "Acts, is evident; for fearce any man, much less fuch a man as Juftin Martyr, could have been fo foolish, or fo confident, as to affirm a thing in which it was fo very easy to conviet "him of falsehood, &c." Dr. Jenkin, in his excellent book Of the Reasonableness and Certainty of the Chriftian Religion, reasons after the fame manner 5, "That it had not been

¢

Safe for Pilate to fend no information to the Emperor con"cerning Chrift-That he did fend, and his information was "entered upon record at Rome: to which Justin Martyr appeals "in his Apology to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, and the Se"nate; and Tertullian in his Apology, which was likewife "prefented to the Senate of Rome, or at least to the governors of "the provinces. They both lived in the next age, and were "both educated in a different religion, and upon these and fuch "like proofs became Chriftians: they were men of excellent "learning and judgment; but no man who could write an Apo"logy, can be fupposed to have so much confidence, and so little "understanding, as to appeal to that account which Pilate fent "to Tiberius, concerning the refurrection of Chrift, in Apologies "dedicated to the Roman Emperor himself, and to the Senate, or ' chief magiftrates of the empire, if no fuch account had ever "been fent, or none had been then extant to be produced. But "by the special providence of God, both the birth and refurrec"tion of our Saviour were inferted into the publick records at "Rome, and were to be feen there for a long time after; and “the Heathens, in whofe cuftody they were, are defired by the "primitive Chriftians to confult them; for they were content to

put the matter upon this ifjue, that if they were refolved not "to believe what the Chriftians faid, yet they would at least "credit their own records." After the fame manner before thefe argued Grotius, Huetius, Waltherus, Bishop Pearfond, and other modern apologifts for the Chriftian religion. To which I may add, that the criticks and hiftorians also have generally affented to the fact; as Cafaubon, Pamelius f, Valefius, Frederick Spanheim 1, Fabricius, &c. And it has not been queftioned by any, as far as I know, except Tana

quillus Fabera and Le Clerc ", and that upon very flight reafons. I conclude it therefore as probable, that Pilate sent some acts or memoirs concerning Jefus Chrift and his miracles to the Emperor Tiberius at Rome.

III. It does not appear that any Christian writer ever faw thefe Acts or Memoirs of Pilate, which were by him fent to Rome. For though Juftin Martyr and Tertullian have appealed to them, yet it seems to me evident they had not read them; for if they had, without doubt much more of their contents had been transferred into their Apologies for Christianity, which they addreffed to the Emperors or Senate. Nec Juftinus nec Tertullianus ea Acta legiffe videntur, fed pro certo fumfiffe-que ad Chriftum pertinebant complexa ea effe, fays Le Clerc, i. e. Neither Juftin nor Tertullian feem to have read thofe Acts (of Pilate, which they appeal to), but to take it for granted (as an allowed thing) that they contained accounts of Christ. Had they had in their hands any fuch acts or memoirs, nothing could have been more to their purpose, than to have produced them in the very words at length; and as nothing would have conduced more to have established and confirmed the Gofpel history and Chriftian cause, they would be justly charged with unpardonable negligence to omit the producing them. Add to all this, that these first apologists were exceeding careful to amafs all together, that would any way tend to beget in the minds of their enemies a perfuafion of the truth of their religion, and the miracles and refurrection of Jefus Chrift; to have effected which, nothing could poffibly have had a greater influence than these records of Pilate's writing. Befides, had any of the Chriftians been favoured with the fight of these Acts, one would have imagined Minutius Felix, who made a confiderable figure at Rome a, or Eufebius, who was fo familiar with Conftantine, would have been the perfons; but inasmuch as the former has not men

tioned them, nor the latter faid any more of them than what he transcribed out of Tertullian, it is reasonable to conclude they were not seen by any of the Chriftian writers: which will appear yet of greater force, if we confider, that a this fame Eufebius makes ufe of the publick records of the city Edeffa; and a great part of his work is taken up in collections or transcripts of every thing, whether wrote by Jews (as Philo and Jofephus), Heathens, or Chriftians, for the credit of Christianity. If it be enquired here, How then came it to pass that Juftin and Tertullian, as in the former head, should appeal to thefe Acts, fince neither they nor any other Chriftians faw them? I answer with the great Cafaubon ", that it seems probable fome fervants or officers of one of the Cafars, who were converted to Chriftianity, and had the opportunity of fearching and being acquainted with the publick records at Rome, gave this general account to fome Chriftians, from whom Juftin and Tertullian had it. And whereas it may be objected, that it is ftrange that afterwards, when the Emperors became Chriftians, thefe records or Acts of Pilate, did not become publick ; I answer, that there is nothing more likely than that they were deftroyed by the malice of the Senate, or fome Roman Emperor, who (as it is certain), when they perceived the growing intereft of Christianity, omitted nothing which they imagined would have any tendency to crush and prevent it.

CHA P. XXX.

A Conjecture concerning the Occafion and Original of these Acts or Gofpel. They feem to have been the Compofure of fome Christian in the latter End of the third Century. This Conjecture fupported by several Arguments.

IV.

F

ROM the preceding obfervations it feems obvious

to conjecture, the age, occafion, and original of the Spurious Gospel of Nicodemus, or thofe Acts of Pilate which I have now under confideration, viz. That it was the forgery of fome Chriftian about the latter end of the third century; who, obferving that there had been appeals made by the Chriftians of the former age to some Acts of Pilate, but that none either were or could be produced, imagined that it would be of fervice to Chriftianity to publish this performance, as what would be not only confirming to the Chriftians in those times of perfecution, but evidential to the Heathens of the truth of their religion. The great defects of the history of these times, the lofs of fo many antient books, the uncertainty as to the genuineness of thofe we have, with many other fuch reasons, make it exceeding difficult to form any certain judgment in things of this nature; I propose therefore this only as what seems to me a probable conjecture, for the following reasons :

1. Such pious frauds in the primitive times (even in the three first centuries) were very common among Chriftians. This is undeniably evident by a great number of inftances in the fecond part of the preceding volume.

2. No Heathen can be fuppofed to be author of this Gofpel. For befides that it proves the author much more acquainted with the Chriftian ftory and doctrine, than any Heathen can be with reafon fuppofed to be, the whole compofure is accommodated and intended (however it may fall fhort) for the honour of Jefus Chrift and his doctrines, which cannot be the work of an Heathen.

3. A forgery of this nature, and with the view above mentioned,