noster Jacobus aufugit--whence, I find, some persons have lately discovered and concluded, that Clemens was a Jew. I think the passage will not prove it. Theophilus ad Autol. iii. 23.—τὰ γράμματα το θείου νόμου, τῷ διὰ Μοσέως ἡμῖν δεδομένου. The law was given to us, says Theophilus; and yet he had been converted from Paganism to Christianity. Therefore when any ancient Christian writers use such expressions, it is not to be inferred thence, with any kind of certainty, that they were of Jewish extraction, or even that they had been proselytes to Judaism. Indeed nothing is more natural than for Christians to speak as if they were Abraham's children; as if the law, and the prophets, and the patriarchs belonged to them as well as to the Jews. In the same same book § 24. Theophilus says, 'Abpaὰμ ὁ πατριάρχης ἡμῶν, 94. Δαυὶδ ὁ πρόγονος ἡμῶν, 27. ̓Αβραάμ το προπάτορος ἡμῶν.

Hermas is cited by Irenæus, who was born about A. D, 120. He is also observed to have made no mention of miracles; but he had nothing to lead him to it, and his book is taken up with visions and revelations. I offered a conjecture concerning it, that it was a parable. Disc. vi, on the Christ. Rel.

He mentions a vision of a formidable beast threatening to devour him, from which he was preserved, and he interprets this of a great tribulation which was to come upon the Christians, and which some have applied to Domitian's persecution. L. i. Vis. ii. § 2, 3. p. 77. Vis. iv, p. 82.

Polycarp, of whose epistle I have taken notice, p. 62. suffered martyrdom under Marcus Aurelius with exemplary courage and constancy. His death is said to have been honoured with some miracles, which are of such a kind, and attended with such circumstances,

that

that there is some reason to pause and doubt of them. But this shall perhaps be considered in its proper place,

The Recognitions, and the Homilies of Clemens, written, as it is thought, in the second century, contain as much truth as Lucian's True History, Aristeas, Gulliver's Travels, the Lives of several Monks, of Lazarilla, of David Simple, and of Gil Blas. It would not be a reasonable request to desire any man to confute this work. It is sufficient to refer the reader to the judgment of Cotelerius, p. 607.

I shall only produce one passage, and none of the worst for a specimen. Peter is introduced saying, Quod cum vidisset Gamaliel princeps populi, qui latenter frater noster erat in fide, sed consilio nostro inter eos erat -i. 65.

Here this knave of a forger makes Peter, or Lord Peter, as he commonly calls him, and the rest of the apostles mere politicians, who persuade Gamaliel to dissemble his religion, and to act the part of a spy and a hypocrite.

In the Recognitions, i. 13. Simon Magus is introduced speaking thus: Pueri incorrupti et violenter necati animam adjuramentis ineffabilibus evocatam, adsistere mihi feci, et per ipsam fit omne quod jubeo. Dr Middleton thus translates it: Simon Magus confessed to one of his companions, that he wrought all his amazing works by the help of the soul of an healthy young boy, who had been violently put to death for that purpose, and then called up from the dead, by ineffable adjurations, and compelled to be his assistant. Inquiry into the Miraculous Powers, &c. p. 67.

Pueri incorrupti animam. In the Greek it was, I suppose, Παιδός αδιαφθόρα ψυχήν. Justin Martyr calls

such children adiaplógus, and Socrates the historian apθόρους παίδας. Justin Apol. i. p. 27. Νεκυομανεται μὲν γν καὶ αἱ ἀδιαφθόρων παίδων ἐποπλεύσεις—Necyomantice enim, et incorruptorum puerorum inspectiones-Socrates iii. 13. Καί τελετάς τινας (υνίςασαν, ὡς καὶ σπλαΓχνοσκοπέμενοι παῖδας και કે later aplópous—which Valesius translates, Quin etiam nefanda quædam mysteria ab illis excogitata sunt; ita ut pueros impuberes immolarent, extaque eorum inspice

rent.

I once told Dr Middleton, that I was inclined to think that in this place incorruptus meant impubis rather than sanus. Adiaplogos, aptogos, incorruptus, mean ̓Αδιάφθορος, ἄφθορος, properly impollutus, expers veneris; and they are used for impubis, because children are usually impolluti. waiδα Οι κόρην διαφθείρειν is stuprare. "Αφθορος, impubes, impollutus, incorruptus, imberbis, say the Lexica. äptopos waïs, puer imberbis. Diosc. ii. c. 102. Και πολλοί τινες και πολλαί, εξηκοντᾶται καὶ ἑβδομηκον]ῖται, οἳ ἐκ παίδων ἐμαθητεύθησαν τῷ Χρισ s@, äptopos diαμérovo. Et multi sexus utriusque, et sexaτῷ, ἄφθοροι διαμένουσι. ginta et septuaginta nati annos, qui a pueris disciplinam Christi sunt assectati, incorrupti permanent. Justin Apol. i. 22. ed. Th. aplogo, impolluti, expertes veneris, etiam legitime. Qui inviolati corporis virginitate perpetua fruuntur, says Minucius, c. xxxi.

Concerning such magical rites, see Broukhusius on Tibullus i. 11. 45. and Fabricius Bibl. Antiqu. p. 417. 419. and Havercamp's Tertullian, Apol. 23. Si Si pueros in eloquium oraculi elidunt. Junius thinks that this relates to the sacrificing of children, which kind of divination was called Berpuara, pædomantia.

Amongst the apostolical writers some have placed the author of the EPISTLE to DIOGNETUS, which has been usually ascribed to Justin Martyr: See Fabric. Bibl, Gr. v. 58. Tillemont (Hist. Eccl. ii. p. 493.)

first declared that he was inclined, for some reasons, to think it more ancient, and written before A. D. 70. He says also that a learned man, whom he names not, had been of that opinion. The last editor of Justin thinks that they are mistaken, as to the antiquity of this epistle, and is in doubt whether it should be ascribed to Justin or no. Pref. p. lxxiv. Baratier gives it to Clemens Romanus, and Mr Whiston to Timothy. In this epistle there are many allusions to the New Testament, which Mr Whiston has marked in the margin of his translation, and there is nothing said concerning any miraculous powers and gifts amongst Christians. It is opus eximium et præstantissimum, says the Benedictin editor, and Baratier and Mr Whiston are of the same opinion. Diognetus, who is called upάrisos, was, we may suppose, if he really existed, a man of some rank. His honour wanted to be informed of the nature of Christianity, and why this new religion was not made known sooner, and for what reasons the Christians exposed themselves to persecution and to death, neglecting the things of this world, and rejecting the religions of the Greeks and of the Jews. To these queries our author replies in a letter, in which the truth of Christianity is, in a manner, taken for granted, and nothing is urged that was proper to convince and convert an unbeliever; so that Diognetus, if he had been morose and censorious, would have concluded, that this writer had found a new religion, but had lost something else. One would think that the apologist would have mentioned the prophecies of the Old Testament accomplished in Christ, the miracles of Christ and of his apostles, and other proofs of the truth and importance of Christianity. Not at all. He begins

with setting forth the folly of worshipping images, and thinking them to be real gods, and this he gives as the reason for which Christians rejected the religion of the Gentiles.

The Jews, says he, though they worship one God, yet offer him sacrifices, as if he stood in need of such gifts, and were to be fed with the stream of victims ; they are also superstitious observers of the difference between food clean and unclean, of the Sabbath, of circumcision, fasts, feasts, new moons, &e. Therefore we Christians reject the Jewish religion.

What he says on this head is not only too severe upon the Jews, but incautious, and injudicious, and, if it proved any thing, would prove more than he intended, and was aware of, and bear hard upon the Mosaic law. The same defect may be observed in some arguments of Arnobius upon the same subject.

Then he proceeds to observe that Christians were examples of all that was good, and patient under afflictions and ill usage; that God sent his Son to suffer for men, to redeem, and to instruct them, who, before he came, knew not God, and who were grown very wicked; all which, if intended as a sufficient proof of Christianity, was little better than begging the question.

He speaks of the Jews, as if at that time they of fered up sacrifices, whence some learned men have concluded that he wrote before the destruction of Jerusalem; but the argument is scarcely conclusive, especially, when we consider what sort of a writer we have to do with. Sacrificia quidem, says the Benedictin, Judæi offerre desierunt post urbis et templi excidia. Sed tamen cum author epistole quid intersit Judeos inter et Christianos exponat, non immerito in Ju