1. In the first place, then, fays he, I think, we are not to make any doubt of the truth of what Eufebius fays, that all this was recorded in the archives of the city Edeffa, in the Syriac language, and was thence tranflated into Greek. Eufebius has been fuppofed by fome to fay, that himself tranflated it from the Syriac. But that is not clear: nor is it certain that he underfood Syriac: much lefs have we any reafon to fay, that he was at Edeffa, and took this account from the archives himself.

2. This History is not mentioned by any before Eufebius; not by Juftin Martyr, nor Tatian, nor Clement of Alexandria, nor Origen, nor by any other. Nor does Eufebius give any

hint of that kind.

He had it from Edefla. It was unheard of among the Greeks, till his time. But having received it, he thought it might be not improperly tranfcribed into his Ecclefiaftical Hiftory.

3. It is not much taken notice of by fucceeding Writers, It is not mentioned, I think, by Athanafius, nor Gregory Nyffen, nor Nazianzen, nor Epiphanius, nor Chryfoftom. Je rome has once mentioned it, and will be cited by and by. But he has not inferted in his catalogue of Ecclefiaftical Writers, either Jefus or Abgarus; neither of whom would have been omitted, if he had any refpect for the Epiftles here produced by Eufebius. This affair is, indeed, mentioned, or referred to, by Ephraim the Syrian, in his Teftament: but that is not a work of fo much authority, as has been fuppofed by fome and it is interpolated in feveral places, both in the Greek and Syriac copies of it; as was obferved formerly.

4. This whole affair was unknown to Chrift's Apoftles, and to the Believers, their contemporaries, both Jews and Gentils; as is manifest from the early disputes about the method of receiving Gentil Converts into the Church. If Jesus Christ had hinfelf writ a letter to a Heathen Prince, and had promifed to fend to him one of his Difciples, and if that Difciple had accordingly gone to Edeffa, and there received the King and his fubjects into communion with the Church, without circumcifion, there could have been no room for any doubt or difpute about the method of receiving Gentil Converts to Chriftianity. Or if any difpute had arifen, would not this hiftory of the vifit of Thaddeus have been alledged? Which would have been fufficient to put all to filence. Nor is there any room to say, that this vifit of Thaddeus at Edeffa, was after St. Peter's going to the house of Cornelius, or after the Council of Jerufalem for it is dated in the 340 year, that is, of the aera of the Seleucidae, or of the Edeffens. Which is computed to be the 15 or 16 year of the reign of Tiberius, and the year of Christ

29; when, according to many ancient Chriftians, our Lord died, and rofe again, and afcended to heaven. Indeed, I think, it is impoffible to reconcile this account with the History in the Acts of the Apoftles.

5. If Jesus had writ a letter to King Abgarus, it would have been a part of facred Scripture, and would have been placed at the head of all the books of the New Teftament. But it was never fo refpected by any ancient Chriftian Writers. It does not appear in any catalogues of canonical books, which we have in ancient Authors, or in Councils. In the Decree of the Council of Rome, in the time of Pope Gelafius, in the year 496, the Epistle of Chrift to Abgarus, is exprefsly called apocryphal. Nor does Eufebius himself, upon any occafion, reckon it up among canonical Scriptures, received by thofe before him. The titles of the chapters of his Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, are allowed to be his own. The title of the chapter which has been just tranfcribed from him is this: A Hiftory concerning the Prince of the Edeffens. It was a ftory which he had received. And he afterwards tells us particularly, where he had it. And in the first chapter of the fecond book of the fame work, having mentioned the choice of Matthias in the room of Judas, and the choice of the feven Deacons, and the death of St. Stephen from the Acts, he recites again briefly the hiftory before told concerning Abgarus, and fays: "This we have learned from the hiftory of the antients. Now we return to the facred Scripture." Where he proceeds to relate from the Acts, what followed after the martyrdom of St. Stephen. In fhort, though Eufebius would not pass over this affair without notice, he feems not to have placed any great weight upon it. And fucceeding Writers have better understood his meaning, than fome of late times, who have fhewn fo much regard to this relation.

6. It was the opinion of many of the most learned and ancient Chriftians, that our Lord wrote nothing. Therefore this Epiftle was unknown to them, or they did not fuppofe it to be genuine. To this purpofe fpeak Origen, Jerome, and Auguftin.

7. There are feveral things in this Epiftle to Abgarus, which are liable to exception.

66

1.) At the beginning of the Epiftle, our Lord is made to fay, Abgarus, thou art happy, for as much as thou haft believed in me, though thou haft not feen me. For it is written concerning me, that they who have feen me fhould not believe in me, that they who have not feen me, might believe in me, and live." Says Du Pin, and to the like purpofe fay others: Where are those words written? Does not one fee, that he

who made this letter, alludes to the words of Jefus Chrift to St. Thomas: Blessed are they who have not feen, and yet have believed. John xx. 29. Words which were not fpoken by Jefus Christ until after his refurrection, and which were not writ until long afterwards. Which manifeftly fhews the forgery of this Epiftle."

2.) Our Lord here feems to fpeak more clearly of his refurrection, or being taken up to heaven, than he does to the Difciples in the Gofpels.

3.) Chrift here defers to cure Abgarus of his diftemper. He tells him, "That fome time hereafter he would fend one of his Difciples to him, who fhould heal him." Which is altogether unworthy of the Lord Jefus, and different from his ufual and well-known conduct, who never refused to grant the requests of those who fought to him, and expreffed faith in his power. Inftead of what is here faid to Abgarus, after commending his faith, our Lord would have added, and faid: "Henceforth thou art healed of thy diftemper." Or, "Be it unto thee according to thy faith." Or, "As thou haft believed, fo be it done unto thee."

This we can conclude from fimilar cafes, recorded by authentic witnesses. Matt. viii. 13. xv. 28. Mark vii. 29.

8. There are feveral other things in this History which are very liable to exception.

1.) It is faid, that after our Lord's refurrection and afcenfion, Thomas fent to Edefla, Thaddeus, one of Chrift's feventy Difciples. But Thaddeus was an Apostle, as we learn from Matt. x. 3. and Mark iii. 8. It is likewife here faid, that Judas called alfo Thomas, fent Thaddeus. Upon which Valefius obferves: "Thomas, who was one of the twelve, was also called Didymus, as we learn from St. John. But that he was alfo called Judas, is no where faid, but in this place. For which caufe this ftory is juftly fufpected." Jerome fpeaking of this matter, fays, "Ecclefiaftical History informs us, that the Apostle Thaddeus was fent to Edeffa, to Abgarus King of Ofrhoëne, who by the Evangelift Luke is called Judas brother of James. Luke vi. 16. and Acts i. 13. and elfewhere is called Lebbeus. Matt. x. 3. So that he had three names.'

2.) When Thaddeus comes to Edefla, he does not go immediately to the King, to whom he was fent, as might be reafonably expected: but he goes to the house of Tobias, where he ftays fome while, and works many miracles; which being noifed abroad, the King hears of him, and fends for him. All this is very abfurd. If Thaddeus, a Difciple of Jefus, had been

fent

fent to the King of Edessa, he ought, and would have gone to him directly, or would have made application to one of the Courtiers, to introduce him to the Prince. This therefore cannot be true hiftory, but must be the invention of fome ignoFant, though conceited, perfon.

3.)" It looks not a little fabulous, fays Mr. Jones, that upon Thaddeus's appearing before the King, he should fee fomewhat extraordinary in his countenance, which none of the company elfe could perceive. Eufebius calls it papa μéya, a great vifion: Valefius renders it divinum nefcio quid, fome divine appearance."

4.) "The account in the hiftory, fays the fame laborious Author, that Abgarus defigned to make war upon the Jews, for crucifying Chrift, feems very unlikely: because it is plain, he was Prince only of a small city, and that at a vast distance from Judea and therefore could never be fo extravagant, as to imagine himself able to deftroy fo powerful a nation as the Jews then were."

5.) Abgarus is faid to have had a grievous and incurable diftemper, for which he defired relief of Jefus. This is faid over and over. But what the diftemper was, is not faid. Learned Moderns, who are not wanting in invention for fupplying the defects of ancient hiftory, fay, fome of them, that it was the Gout, others the Leprofy. However, prefently after the cure of the Prince, we are told of one Abdus fon of Abdus, whom Thaddeus cured of the Gout.

6.) We read not of any other city or country, in the first three centuries, where the people were all at once converted to the Chriftian faith. If the people of Edeffa had been all Chriftians from the days of the Apoftles, it would have been known before the time of Eufebius. And I may add, that if this story, told by our Ecclefiaftical Hiftorian, had been efteemed credible, it would have been much more taken notice of by fucceeding Writers than it is.

7.) I forbear to remark, as I might, upon that expreffion of Thaddeus in his difcourfe with Abgarus: "Jefus Chrift, our Lord and God, fulfilled the will of the Father:" or upon what is here faid of Chrift's defcent into Hell.

9. The obfervations which have been already made, are fufficient to fhew, that the Letter of Abgarus to Jefus Chrift, and our Lord's Refcript, cannot be reckoned genuine. The whole History is the fiction of fome Chriftian at Edeffa, in the time of Eufebius, or not long before. The people of Edeffa were then generally Chriftians, and they valued themfelves upon it and

they

they were willing to do themselves the honour of a very early converfion to the Chriftian Faith. By fome one, or more of them united together, this Hiftory was formed, and was fo far received by Eufebius, as to be thought by him not improper to be inferted in his Ecclefiaftical History. Nor could I omit to take notice of it, as great regard has been fhewn to it by fome. But all my Readers may perceive, that I bring not in this thing as a teftimony of the firft antiquity; though it may afford good proof of the Chriftianity of the people of Edeffa, at the beginning of the fourth century, when Eufebius flourished, or before.'

The remaining chapters contain the Teftimonies of the elder Pliny, Tacitus, Martial, Juvenal, Suetonius, &c. The Doctor places Suetonius in his firft volume, and before the younger Pliny, becaufe his teftimony has a near affinity with the particulars mentioned by Tacitus.

We fhall conclude this article with obferving, that though fcarce any thing new is to be expected in a work of this kind, the Doctor's Collection, when compleated, will be the fullest, and confequently the most valuable Collection of Teftimonies to the truth of the Chriftian Religion, that is any where to be met with,

Arminius: Or, Germania Freed. Tranflated from the third Edi tion of the German Original. Written by Baron Cronzeck, . With an hiftorical and critical Preface, by the celebrated Profeffor Gottfcheid of Leipfic. 12mo. 2 Vols. 5 S.

Becket and De Hondt.

TH

HE prefent manners of the world are fo very different from those of the fabled heroic ages, that it is no wonder if the greatest charms of Epic poetry have loft their influence on the generality of Readers. We will venture to say, that not even the immortal genius of a Milton himself would have fucceeded in this fpecies of compofition, had he strictly confined himself to the rules of the Stagyrite. One of the ancient laws of criticism is, that an Epic Poet fhould make choice of a Hero of his own country, and in whose reputation a whole nation is interested. This Hero muft likewife have performed fome exploit highly advantageous to his country, both in itself and its confequences. This law, it is true, has been authorized by the practice of Homer and Virgil; and it appears from the private hiftory of our English Homer, that when he first conceived the defign of an heroic poem, he thought of acting conformably to it; making choice of King Arthur for his Hero.

We