141 



as to bring all these medals as authorities to demonstrate, that both 

 Hebrew and Samaritan characters were in use at the period of our 

 Saviour's life. Leusden calls his medal, " Siclus Judaeo-Christianus," 

 and says, tliat it was the fabrication of converted Jews ; lie quotes 

 Alstedius, who ranks it under the title, " posterior effigies sicli sa. 

 " cri." The opinion of Alstedius concerning their origin is po- 

 sitive, he sayS; " Sic enim statuo de tali nummo, post mortem 

 " Ch.riati quidain Judasi receperunt Evangelium, hi igitur talem 

 " nummui'n loco veteris illius sicli substituerunt." 



It ii? to be remarked, that the converted Jews here spoken of, are 

 implied to have struck this coin just after our Saviour's birth. 

 ■ Let us now examine into the nature of the evidence which is 

 given against them by Wagenseil ; and I must premise, that, as an 

 authority against their antiquity, we must consider him to stand 

 alone. Patinus, whom he quotes as having condemned the coins 

 of Abraham and of David, does not speak of these ; and Morinus, 

 who follows Wagenseil in some opinions, not only doubts upon this 

 point, in opposition to him, as I have shewn above, but where he 

 inclines to agree with him in others, is not altogether consistent in 

 his reasonings. He thinks they may be forgeries, becaiise parts of 

 the same words are in different lines. But, surely, if the fabricator 

 were, as Wagenseil supposes, a Christian, " linguam Hebraicara 

 " edocto", he must have understood the customary mode of writing 

 that language ; and, therefore, a deviation from practice must have 

 been wilful, and not from ignorance. To meet this obvious answer, 

 Morinus guesses that they were forged by Jews to deceive the 

 Christians, and that the forgers introduced this error, tliat they 

 might not deceive their own sect. This conjecture is palpably fu- 



