deus informed him of the ascension of Christ to his Father; the king replied, I believe in him, and in his Father also; on which the Apostle said, I lay my hand on you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; and the king was instantly cured of his disease. He also cured others who were diseased; and on the morrow, the king ordered all the city to meet together, to hear the Apostle preach. The king offered him gold and silver, which he refused, saying, "We have left our own; and should we take that which is another's?"

These Epistles are also mentioned by EPHREM the Syrian, who was a deacon in the church of Edessa, in the latter end of the fourth century. His account of this matter, as given by Dr Grabe, is as follows:-" Blessed be your city, and mother Edessa, which was expressly blessed by the mouth of the Lord and his Disciples, but our Apostles; for when Abgarus the king, who built that city, thought fit to send and acknowledge Christ, the Lord and Saviour of all, in his pilgrimage on earth, saying, I have heard all things which are done by you, and how much you have suffered by the Jews who contemn you, wherefore, come hither, and take up your residence with me; I have a little city which shall be equally yours and mine;-hereupon, the Lord, admiring his faith, sent by messengers a blessing unto the city, which should abide for ever, till the Holy One be revealed from heaven, even Jesus Christ the Son of God, and God of God."

No other writer of the first four centuries makes any explicit mention of this Epistle; but PROCOPIUS, in the sixth century, in his history of the Persian war, relates, "That Abgarus had been long afflicted with the gout, and finding no relief from the physicians, but hearing of the miracles of Christ, sent to him, and desired that he would come and live with him; and that upon his receiving an answer from Christ, he was immediately cured; and that our Saviour, in the end of his letter, gave Abgarus assurance, that this city should never be taken by enemies.

EVAGRIUS, in the latter end of the sixth century, appeals to this account of PROCOPIUS, and confirms the story, that the city never should be taken by enemies, by a reference to some facts, particularly the failure of Chosroes to take the city when he laid siege to it. But this author adds a circumstance which has much the air of a fable, that this failure of capturing the city was brought about by a picture of Christ's face, which he had impressed on a handkerchief, and sent to ABGARUS, at his earnest request.

CEDRENUS adds to all the rest, that Christ sealed his letter with a seal consisting of seven Hebrew letters, the meaning of which was, the divine miracle of God is seen.

Among the moderns, a very large majority are of opinion, that this Epistle is Apocryphal. Indeed, the principal advocates of its genuineness, are a few learned Englishmen, particularly Dr Parker, Dr Cave, and Dr Grabe, but they do not speak confidently on the subject; while, on the other side, are found almost the whole body of learned critics, both Protestants and Romanists. Now, that this Epistle and history existed in the Archives of Edessa, in the time of Eusebius, there is no room to doubt, unless we would accuse this respectable historian of the most deliberate falsehood; for he asserts that he himself had taken them thence. His words, however, must not be too strictly interpreted, as though he had himself been at Edessa, and had translated the Epistle from the Syriac; for there is reason to believe that he never visited that place, and that he was not acquainted with the Syriac tongue. The words will be sufficiently verified, if this document was translated and transmitted to him, through an authentic channel, from Edessa.

It is probable, therefore, that this story has some foundation in truth. Probably, Thaddeus, or some other Apostle, did preach the Gospel and perform miracles in that city; but how much of the story is credible, it is not now easy to determine. But I think it may be shown, that this Epistle was never penned by Jesus Christ, for the following reasons:—

1. It is never mentioned in the genuine Gospels; nor referred to by any writer of the first three centuries.

2. If this account had been true, there never could have been any hesitation among the Apostles, about preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles.

3. It is unreasonable to believe, that if Christ had been applied to by this king for healing, he would have deferred a cure, until he could send an Apostle, after his ascension. This does not correspond with the usual conduct of the benevolent Saviour.

4. It seems to have been a tradition universally received, that Christ never wrote any thing himself; and if he had written this letter, it would have been more prized than any other portion of Scripture, and would have been placed in the Canon, and every where read in the churches.

5. After it was published by Eusebius, it never gained so much credit as to be received as a genuine writing of Christ.

EPISTLE TO THE LAODICEANS SPURIOUS.

177

As it was unknown in the first three centuries, so, in the fourth, when published, it was scarcely noticed by any writer.

6. The plain mention of our Lord's ascension in the Epistle, is an evidence of its spuriousness; for in all his discourses, recorded by the Evangelists, there is no such explicit declaration of this event; and it cannot be supposed, that he would speak more explicitly to a heathen king, than to the persons chosen to be witnesses of his actions, and dispensers of his doctrine.

There is, however, nothing in the sentiments expressed in this Epistle, unsuitable to the humble and benevolent character of the Saviour; but learned men have supposed that there are several internal evidences of spuriousness, besides those just mentioned. I conceive, however, that the reasons already assigned will be considered as sufficient to prove, that this Letter forms no part of the Sacred Canon. It is excluded by several of the rules laid down above; and even if it was genuine, it seems, that it ought rather to be received as a private communication, than as intended for the edification of the whole church. The history, which accompanies this letter, has several strong marks of spuriousness; but as this does not claim to be Canonical, we need not pursue the subject further. It may, however, not be amiss to remark, that the story of the picture of our Saviour, impressed on a handkerchief, and sent to Abgarus, is enough of itself to condemn the history as fabulous. This savours not of the simplicity of Christ, and has no parallel in any thing recorded in the Gospel.*

II. There is now extant an Epistle, under the title of Paul to the Laodiceans; and it is known, that as early as the beginning of the second century, a work existed under this name, which was received by MARCION, the heretic. But there is good reason for thinking, that the Epistle now extant is an entirely different work from the one which anciently existed; for the present Epistle does not contain the words which Epiphanius has cited from that used by Marcion: and what renders this clear is, that the ancient Epistle was heretical, and was rejected by the Fathers of the church, with one consent; whereas, the Epistle we now have contains nothing erroneous; for it is a mere compilation from the other Epistles of Paul, with a few additional sentences, which contain no heretical doctrine.

As the Epistle is short, a translation of it will be given in the Notes at the end of the volume.†

* See Note F, in Appendix.

t See Note G, in Appendix.

M

Concerning the ancient Epistle under this title, Philastrius says, "That some were of opinion that it was written by Luke; but because the heretics have inserted some (false) things, it is for that reason not read in the churches. Though it be read by some, yet there are no more than thirteen Epistles of Paul read to the people in the church, and sometimes that to the Hebrews."

"There are some," says Jerome, "who read an Epistle, under the name of Paul, to the Laodiceans, but it is rejected by all."

And Epiphanius calls it, "An Epistle not written by the Apostles."

The Epistle now extant never having been received into the ancient catalogues read in the churches, or cited as Scripture, is of course Apocryphal.

It is also proved not to be genuine, because it is almost entirely an extract from the other Epistles of Paul.

III. Another writing which has been ascribed to Paul is, Six Letters to Seneca; with which are connected, Eight Letters from Seneca to Paul. These Letters are of undoubted antiquity, and several learned men of the Jesuits have defended them as genuine, and allege that they are similar to other Epistles received into the Canon, which were addressed to individuals. That such letters were in existence as early as the fourth century, appears from a passage in Jerome's Catalogue of Illustrious Men, where he gives the following account of Seneca:-" Lucius Annæus Seneca, born at Corduba, a disciple of Sotio, a stoic, uncle of Lucan the poet, was a person of very extraordinary temperance, whom I should not have ranked in my Catalogue of Saints, but that I was determined to it, by the Epistles of Paul to Seneca, and Seneca to Paul, which are read by many. In which, though he was at that time tutor to Nero, and made a very considerable figure, he saith, he wishes to be of the same repute among his countrymen, as Paul was among the Christians. He was slain by Nero, two years before Peter and Paul were honoured with martyrdom."

There is also a passage in Augustine's 54th Epistle to Macedonius, which shows that he was not unacquainted with these Letters. His words are, " It is true which Seneca, who lived in the times of the Apostles, and who wrote certain Epistles to Paul, which are now read, said, he who will hate those who are wicked, must hate all men.'"

There is no authentic evidence, that these Letters have

been noticed by any of the rest of the Fathers. Indeed, it has been too hastily asserted by several eminent critics, that Augustine believed that the Letters of Paul to Seneca were genuine; but the fact is, that he makes no mention whatever of Paul's Letters; he only mentions those of Seneca to Paul. The probability is, that he never saw them, for had he been acquainted with them, it is scarcely credible that he would have said nothing respecting them in that place.

Neither does Jerome say any thing from which it can, with any certainty, be inferred that he received these Letters as genuine. He gives them the title by which they were known, and says, they were read by many; but if he had believed them to be genuine Letters of Paul, would he not have said much more? Would he not have claimed for them a place among Paul's Canonical Epistles? And what proves that this Father did not believe them to be genuine, is, that in this same book he gives a full account of Paul and his writings, and yet does not make the least mention of these Letters to Seneca.

But the style of these Letters sufficiently demonstrates that they are not genuine. Nothing can be more dissimilar to the style of Paul, and of Seneca, than that of these Epistles. "The style of those attributed to Seneca," says Du Pin, "is barbarous, and full of idioms that do not belong to the Latin tongue." "And those attributed to Paul," says Mr Jeremiah Jones, "have not the least tincture of the gravity of the Apostle, but are rather compliments than instructions."

The subscriptions to these Letters are very different from those used by these writers in their genuine Epistles. Seneca is made to salute Paul by the name of brother; an appellation not in use among the Heathen, but peculiar to Christians.

By several of these Letters, it would appear that Paul was at Rome when they were written, but from others the contrary may be inferred.

It seems strange, if they were both in the city, that they should date their Letters by consulships; and, indeed, this method of dating letters was wholly unknown among the Romans; and there are several mistakes in them, in regard to the consuls in authority at the time.

66

Their trifling contents is also a strong argument of spuriousness. They contain nothing," says Du Pin, "worthy either of Seneca or of Paul; scarcely one moral sentiment in the Letters of Seneca, nor any thing of Christianity in those of Paul."