140 



eope, as in the omission of Hajin from Jeshuang, was an innova- 

 tion of tlie later Syrians. I shall revert to these observations, and 

 conclude this account with this deduction, that, if these authors are 

 to he credited, these medals are quite modern, and, according to 

 ^Vagenseil, of the twelfth century at the earliest. 



Let VIS now inquire, whether there be any evidence, upon which 

 we can rest the presumption of an earlier date. I have already 

 stated the circumstances which make against the supposition of their 

 being of the first Christian age ; but there are not wanted learned 

 opinions to give them very great antiquity. Hottinger and Wase- 

 rus, in treating of them, seem to entertain no doubt of their being 

 genuine remnants of the earliest possible date: at least, so far from 

 expressing such a doubt, the latter acquaints us with circum- 

 stances, which I shall hereafter relate, and which are vouchers for 

 the truth of the resemblance to our Saviour. Crinesius not only 

 admits these medals to be genuine, but quotes them as collateral 

 proofs of the use of tlie present Hebrew character in the time of 

 Christ. He argues, that they were not coins, because such an 

 " image and superscription" was alienissima a consensu gubernato- 

 " rum Jerusehalamitanorum, penes quos fuit libertas excudendi mo- 

 " netas ;" and determines, that " a piis inter Christi fideles priva- 

 " tim ■ prociu'atas invicem i^vrii^m kyknenz »«< <piKla.i ^a^iv fuisse 

 " oblatas :" and Morinus, although he hiclines to the opinion of 

 a later forgery, says of the medal of Theseus Ambrosius, which bore 

 an inscription in Samaritan characters, that some of these people 

 were Christians, (for which he quotes John iv. 39,) and that " fro- 

 " babilius est hos Samaritanos, ad conservandam suae conversionis 

 " memoriam, hunc nummum privatim cudisse." He also goes so far 



