What can be more unlike Paul than the Fifth Letter, which is occupied with a servile apology for putting his own name before Seneca's, in the inscription of his Letters, and declaring this to be contrary to Christianity?

These Letters, moreover, contain some things which are not true, as, "That the emperor Nero was delighted and surprised at the thoughts in Paul's Epistles to the Churches:""And that Nero was both an admirer and favourer of Christianity." But very incongruous with this, and also with Paul's character, is that which he is made to say in his Fourth Epistle, where he entreats Seneca to say no more to the emperor respecting him or Christianity, lest he should offend him. Yet, in the Sixth Letter, he advises Seneca to take convenient opportunities of insinuating the Christian religion, and things favourable to it, to Nero and his family. But for further particulars, the reader is referred to the Epistles themselves, a translation of which, extracted from Jones, is inserted in the Notes.*

IV. There is extant, a spurious Gospel, entitled, The Protevangelion of James, in the Greek language, which was brought from the East by POSTELL, who asserts, that it is held to be genuine by the Oriental churches, and is publicly read in their assemblies with the other Scriptures. This learned man, moreover, undertakes the defence of this Gospel, as the genuine production of the Apostle James; and insists, that it ought, at least, to have a place in the Hagiographa. But his arguments are weak, and have been fully refuted by Fabricius, and Jones.

This Apocryphal book, however, appears to be ancient, or, at least, there was formerly a book under the same name; but that it is not Canonical, is easily proved. It is quoted by none of the ancient Fathers, except Epiphanius, who explicitly rejects it as Apocryphal. It is found in none of the catalogues, and was never read in the primitive church. It contains many false and trifling stories; and, in its style and composition, is a perfect contrast to the genuine Gospels of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

From the Hebraisms with which it abounds, it has been supposed to be the work of some person, who was originally a Jew; but as it was anciently used by the Gnostics, there can be little doubt, that the author, when he wrote, belonged to some one of the heretical sects, which so abounded in primitive times.

* See Note H, in Appendix.

There is also another work, which has a near affinity with this, called, the Nativity of Mary. And although these books possess a similar character, and contain many things in common; yet in other points they are contradictory to each other, as they both are, to the Evangelical history.

The internal evidence is itself sufficient to satisfy any candid reader of their Apocryphal character."

V. The largest Apocryphal Gospel extant, is entitled, The Gospel of our Saviour's Infancy. There is also remaining a fragment of a Gospel ascribed to Thomas, which probably was, originally, no other than the one just mentioned.

These Gospels were never supposed to be Canonical by any Christian writer. They were forged and circulated by the Gnostics, and altered from time to time, according to their caprice.

The Gospel of our Saviour's Infancy seems to have been known to Mohammed, or rather to his assistants; for according to his own account, in the Koran, he was unable to read. Many of the things related in the Koran, respecting Christianity, are from this Apocryphal work.

This Gospel is condemned by almost every rule laid down for the detection of spurious writings; and if all other evidence were wanting, the silly, trifling, and ludicrous stories, with which it is stuffed, would be enough to demonstrate, that it was spurious and Apocryphal. To give the curious reader an opportunity of contrasting these Apocryphal legends with the gravity and simplicity of the genuine Gospels, I have inserted some of the miracles recorded in this book, at the end of the volume.t

It seems highly probable that this Gospel of the Saviour's Infancy, and the book of the Nativity of Mary, were originally parts of the same work; an evidence of which is, that in the Koran, there is a continued and connected story, which is taken partly from the one, and partly from the other. The same thing is proved by the fact, that Jerome, in one place, speaks of a Preface which he had written to the Gospel of our Saviour's Infancy, in which he condemns it, because it contradicts the Gospel of John; and in another place, he uses the same words, and says they are in the Preface to the Nativity of Mary.

Both these Apocryphal books have been formerly ascribed

Both of these Apocryphal works may be seen in the second volume of Jones' learned work on the Canon.

+ See Note I, in Appendix.

See Koran, chap. iii.

to LUCIUS CHARINUS, who lived in the latter part of the third century, and who rendered himself famous, by forging spurious works under the name of the Apostles.

VI. There is another Apocryphal Gospel, entitled, The Gospel of Nicodemus, or the Acts of Pilate, which was probably forged about the same time as the one last treated of, and, it is very likely, by the same person.

That it was the custom for the governors of provinces in the Roman Empire, to transmit to the emperors an account of all remarkable occurrences under their government, is capable of proof from the Roman history; and Eusebius expressly informs us, that this was customary; and Philo-Judæus speaks, "Of the daily memoirs which were transmitted to Caligula, from Alexandria."

That Pontius Pilate transmitted some account of the crucifixion of Christ, and of his wonderful works, is, therefore, in itself, highly probable; but it is rendered certain, by the public appeal made to these Acts of Pilate, both by JUSTIN MARTYR, and TERTULLIAN, in their Apologies; the one addressed to the Roman Emperor, ANTONINUS PIUs; and the other, probably, to the Roman Senate. The words of Justin Martyr, are," And of the truth of these facts you may be informed, out of the Acts which were written by PONTIUS PILATE." And in the same Apology, he refers to these Acts for proof, "That our Saviour cured all sorts of diseases, and raised the dead."

66

TERTULLIAN, in two places of his Apology, appeals to Records which were transmitted to Tiberius, from Jerusalem. His testimony is remarkable in both places, and deserves to be transcribed: "Tiberius," says he, in whose time the Christian name became first known in the world, having received information from Palestine, in Syria, that Jesus Christ had there given manifest proof of the truth of his divinity, communicated it to the Senate, insisting upon it as his prerogative, that they should assent to his opinion in that matter; but the Senate not approving it, refused. Cæsar continued in the same opinion, threatening those who were accusers of the Christians."

In the other passage, after enumerating many of the miracles of Christ, he adds, "All these things, Pilate himself, who was in his conscience for following Christ, transmitted to Tiberius Cæsar; and even the Cæsars themselves had been Christians, if it had been consistent with their secular interest." Both Eusebius and Jerome cite this testimony of Tertullian, as au

thentic. It seems, therefore, certain, that some account of Christ and his actions was transmitted by Pilate to the emperor. "For," to use the words of an eminent man, "Tertullian, though a Christian writer, durst never have presumed to impose upon the Senate themselves, with such a remarkable story, if he was not able to prove it; and that he was, is evident from Justin Martyr, who often appeals to the Acts of Pilate, concerning the history of our Saviour-that Pilate did send such Acts is evident, for scarce any man, much less such a man as Justin Martyr, would have been so foolish, or so confident, as to affirm a thing in which it would be so easy to convict him of falsehood."*

"They

And another, speaking of the same thing, says, were men of excellent learning and judgment; but no man who could write an Apology, can be supposed to have so little understanding as to appeal to that account which Pilate sent to Tiberius, concerning the resurrection of Christ, in Apologies, dedicated to the Roman Emperor himself, and to the Senate, if no such account had ever been sent."†

It does not follow, however, that these Fathers had ever seen these Acts, or that they were ever seen by any Christian. During the reigns of heathen emperors, Christians could have no access to the archives of the nation; but the fact of the existence of such a record, might have been, and probably was, a matter of public notoriety; otherwise, we never can account for the confident appeal of these learned and respectable writers. There is no difficulty in conceiving how such a fact might have been certainly known to these Fathers, without supposing that they had seen the record. As the learned Casaubon says, "Some servants, or officers, of one of the Cæsars, who were converted to Christianity, and had opportunity of searching the public records at Rome, gave this account to some Christians, from whom Justin and Tertullian had it."

It may seem to be an objection to the existence of such Acts, that they were never made public, when the emperors became Christains; but it is altogether probable, that they were destroyed through the malice of the Senate, or of some Roman Emperor who was hostile to Christianity. They who took so much pains to destroy the writings of Christians, would not suffer such a monument of the truth of Christianity to remain, in their own palace.

But as to those Acts of Pilate which are now extant, no one supposes that they are genuine. They have every mark

• Dr Parker.

+ Dr Jenkin.

of being spurious. The external and internal evidence is equally against them; and it would be a waste of time to enter into any discussion of this point.

It may, however, be worth while to inquire into the motives which, probably, led some mistaken Christian to forge such a narrative. And there seems to have been two; first, to have it in his power to show the record to which the Fathers had so confidently referred. The heathen adversaries might say, after the destruction of the genuine Acts of Pilate, where is the document to which this appeal has been made ?—let_it be produced. And some man thinking that he could serve the cause of Christianity, by forging Acts under the name of Pilate, was induced, through a mistaken zeal, to write this narrative.

But there was another reason, which, probably, had some influence on this fact. About the close of the third century, the heathen had forged and published a writing, called The Acts of Pilate, the object of which was, to render the Christians odious and contemptible to the public, by foul calumnies against their Founder, and his Apostles. Of this fact, EUSEBIUS gives us express and particular information: "From whence," says he, "the forgery of these is manifestly detected, who have lately published certain Acts, against our Saviour. In which, first, the very time which is assigned to them, discovers the imposture; for those things which they have impudently forged to have come to pass at our Saviour's crucifixion, are said to have occurred in the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which coincides with the seventh of his reign; at which time, it is certain, Pilate was not yet come into Judea, if any credit is due to Josephus, who expressly says, that Pilate was not constituted governor of Judea, until the twelfth year of Tibe

rius."
"" *

And in another place, he says, "Seeing, therefore, that this writer (Josephus), who was himself a Jew, has related such things in his history concerning John the Baptist and the Saviour, what can they possibly say for themselves, to prevent being convicted of the most impudent forgery, who wrote those things against John and Christ?"

And in the ninth book of his Ecclesiastical History, this writer gives us information, still more particular, respecting this malicious forgery. "At length (the heathen), having forged certain Acts of Pilate, concerning our Saviour, which were full of all sorts of blasphemy against Christ, they caused them, by the decree of Maximinus, to be dispersed through

Euseb. Ecc. Hist. Lib. i, c. 9, 11.