the Recognitions were formed; as the author of the Clementine Epitome has borrowed from both.

Thus has the name of Clement, the companion and fellow labourer of the apostle Paul, been abused by men of three several denominations and characters; an Ebionite, an Arian, and a Catholic. The hand of an Ebionite, in the Clementine Homilies, is, I think, generally acknowledged by learned moderns: and Epiphanius, speaking of the Travels of Peter, says, they had been altered and corrupted by the Ebionites. It was very natural for him, who supposed those travels were written by Clement, to say that they were corrupted by the Ebionites; for certainly the peculiar principles of that sect could not proceed from a fellow-labourer of the apostle Paul. But that there was no good foundation, in the most early antiquity, for supposing Clement to be the author of any of these pieces, may be concluded from Eusebius. I apprehend it must appear probable, from our extracts and observations, that the Clementine Homilies were composed by an Ebionite; and that the main ground and foundation at least of the Recognitions, also is the work of a man of the same sect.

Some Arian must have interpolated the Recognitions, as is evident from the character of them in Photius before mentioned; and from Rufinus, who says, that in some places (in his Greek copies of the Recognitions) the doctrine of Eunomius is so plainly put down, that one would believe Eunomius himself was the speaker, teaching, that the Son of God was created out of nothing.' These things, I suppose, could not be written before the fourth century.

That the Clementine Epitome was composed by an orthodox christian, is notorious. However, it may be said in favour of the catholics, that none of them appear to have had any hand in any of these Clementines during the first three centuries. It may be added likewise, that it was known that the Clementine Epitome was not an original piece; and that it was not pretended to be really written by Clement, but was allowed to consist of things selected out of some other work or works. This may be concluded from the author of the Synopsis: but yet this does not amount to a full vindication of this book, and the title given

In quibus [Recognitionis libris] cum ex persona Petri apostoli doctrina quasi vere apostolica in quamplurimis exponatur; in aliquibus ita Eunomii dogma scribitur, [al. inseritur,] ut nihil aliud quam ipse Eunomius disputare credatur, filium Dei creatum ex nullis extantibus asseverans. De Adulteratione Libr. Origenis.

to it. For though the learned author of the Synopsis knew very well, as it seems, that the book of Clementines, in use in the church, was not really written by Clement, but was an orthodox modern book, composed out of some other more ancient writings, which were not completely catholic; yet the generality of people would be induced, from the title, to take it for the work of Clement himself. Nor is the account of this book in the Synopsis just and fair: since, as has been shown, it is not a mere epitome of the ancient Clementines, but has many additions.

6

b

I am far from taking pleasure in mentioning these things but there is a necessity of distinguishing genuine and supposititious works. And I hope I may rely upon what is said by that great author, Phileleutherus Lipsiensis, speaking of the various readings of the several copies of the New Testament: Depend on it, no truth, no matter of 'fact fairly laid open, can ever subvert true religion.' It is possible that some weak and inconsiderate meu may be offended at the detection of forged and supposititious writings; but I think that truth would suffer much more in the end by letting them pass without censure.

6

6

It cannot be, I think, beside the purpose, to put down in this place a passage of a letter of Salvian, presbyter of Marseilles in the fifth century, to Salonius, bishop of some place in Gaul, or near it. Salvian wrote a treatise, in four books, against covetousness, without putting his name to it. It begins with an epistolary address in this manner: Timothy, the least of the servants of God, to the catholic 'church spread over the whole world, grace be to thee, and peace, from God our Father, and from Jesus Christ our Lord, with the Holy Spirit.' Salonius, dissatisfied about this, sent his scruples in a letter to Salvian, as appears from what Salvian writes by way of answer, which is to this purpose: You ask me, my dear Salonius, why the name of Timothy has been put to some books lately composed and inscribed to the church by some man of our 'time. You add likewise, that unless I clearly show the reason of this title, since they are called Timothy's, perhaps they ought to be reckoned apocryphal.' Salvian b Remarks upon a Discourse of Free-Thinking, sect. 32.

It is not certain what place he was bishop of. Vid. Cave, Hist. Lit. P. i. p. 457. Stephan. Baluz. Not. ad Salvian. p. 374. Paris. 1669. Du Pin, Bibliothèque.

d Quæris a me, O mi Saloni, caritas mea, cur libellis nuper a quodam hujus temporis homine ad ecclesiam factis, Timothei nomen inscriptum sit. Addis præterea, quod nisi rationem vocabuli evidenter expressere, dum nominantur Timothei, inter apocrypha sint fortasse reputandi. Salvian. ep. ix.

then proposes the reasons of this title, still speaking of the author in the third person, without owning himself to have had any hand in those books. I need not now mention particularly those reasons; but I would make a few remarks upon this passage.

1. We see here the meaning of the word apocryphal ;' it is much the same as spurious, or supposititious; at least the word was so used sometimes. A book with the name of Timothy, which was not his, Salonius thought should be placed in the number of apocryphal books.

2. Here is an instance of the vigilance and caution of christians about the books which they received as written by apostles, or apostolical men. The books against covetousness, named Timothy's, are good books; nevertheless, since they were not his, Salonius was for having them called by the disadvantageous title of apocryphal, or spurious. So far from receiving them as canonical, he would not admit them into the rank of ecclesiastical writings. Indeed here is inserted a modest perhaps,' which, it is likely, he thought necessary in writing to his master Salvian, whose opinion upon the point he did not yet know. Otherwise he seems to have expressed himself positively enough, and desires a good reason to be given him of the name put to these books.

6

3. It is a dangerous thing to assume the names of great men; the consequence may be worse than we imagine. Salvian did not intend that these books should be thought to be really written by Timothy; he was a man of more virtue, and particularly of more modesty, than to incur the suspicion of such a design. Nevertheless, he acted indiscreetly, and Salonius justly demanded a clear reason of this title; otherwise these books were to be branded as apocryphal, lest they should be supposed, by some people, to be really Timothy's. We are certainly indebted to the circumspection and care of Salonius, and perhaps of others likewise, in this affair. If no notice had been taken at that time of this ambiguous title, these books might have been reputed, by many, a genuine work of Timothy, the disciple and fellow-labourer of the apostle Paul; and notwithstanding this notice, they seem to have been published as his, in the first printed edition of them.

e

VIII. I now conclude my extracts out of christian writers of the second century. If any miss some authors,

• Vid. Steph. Baluz. not. ad Salvian. p. 416. et Centurialores Magdeburg. cent. v. c. 10. p. 1325.

VOL. II.

2 с

which they expected to have seen mentioned here, it is likely they will find them in the following century.

I do not sum up the several testimonies which have been already taken: we are as yet collecting evidence, and expect more. As a general review of the whole will be made at the end, that may be sufficient.

It ought to be observed, that we have not here the whole remaining evidence of the first two centuries, because I have hitherto insisted chiefly on catholic authors. I suppose that the sentiments of those called Heretics, will give some confirmation to the testimonies of catholic christians. Possibly some heathen authors may afford us some evidence. Celsus the Epicurean, who within this period wrote professedly against the christian religion, will be a considerable witness in behalf of the books, as well as facts, of the New Testament. But these are to be considered hereafter in distinct articles.

CHAP. XXX.

MINUCIUS FELIX.

MARCUS MINUCIUS FELIX has left us an excellent defence of the christian religion written in the form of a dialogue or conference between Cæcilius Natalis, a heathen, and Octavius Januarius, a christian, in which Minucius sits as judge. Cæcilius first objects, and then Octavius answers. When he has finished, after a short interval of silence, Cæcilius owns himself convinced and overcome, and declares his readiness to become a christian.

a

This piece had been long reckoned an eighth book of Arnobius against the Gentiles;' but for some while has been restored by the critics to Minucius, to whom it is ascribed by ancient christian authors who have quoted it: not to mention any other reasons, why it ought not to be esteemed a part of Arnobius's work.

It is difficult to determine with exactness the age of Minucius. The generality of learned men have placed bim between Tertullian and St. Cyprian. Cave, in par

• Vid. imprimis Dissert. Fr. Balduini in M. Minucii Felicis Octavium. De ætate ejus quâ vixit, nil habeo quod pro certo affirmare ausim: si

C

ticular, thinks he flourished about the year 220; but without being positive that he has hit his exact age. David Blondell thought Minucius wrote under Marcus Antoninus the philosopher, about the year 170. The late most ingenious and critical Mr. Moyle too thought, that the age of Minucius, though not certain, had been fixed, with great probability, to the latter end of the reign of the same emperor, by Mr. Dodwell.' And it is true, Mr. Dodwell declared that to be his opinion, in his Dissertationes Cyprianicæ, published in 1684. But in a book entitled, A Discourse concerning the use of Incense in Divine Offices,' published in 1711, he brings Minucius down a good deal later. But,' says he, what then shall " we think of the aræ nullæ in Minucius Felix? He wrote a little after Tertullian, as mentioning the representation ' of the God of the christians with an ass's head, which was a calumny newly invented when Tertullian wrote his Apology; yet before St. Cyprian, who transcribes some passages out of him verbatim in his book De Vanitate 'Idolorum.'

6

It may be farther observed, that the internal characters of time in this work are not unsuitable to the latter part of the second, or the beginning of the third century. The christians are in afflictive circumstances, without altars and temples; and are loaded by Cæcilius, in his part of the dispute, with all manner of reproaches. Lastly, St. Jerom, in his book of Illustrious Men, where he has some regard to the order of time, has placed Minucius between Tertullian and St. Cyprian; and in the chapter of Tertullian says, that Tertullian was then generally reckoned the first of the Latin writers of the church, after Victor and Apollonius.

I think, upon the whole, that if this Dialogue was written after Tertullian's Apology, yet it may be allowed to have soon followed it; and these two christian apologists may be reckoned contemporaries. I therefore place Minucius

tamen in re obscurâ dubiâque hariolari licet, conjiciam illum, utpote Tertulliano supparem, Cypriano antiquiorem, circa an. 220, claruisse. Cave, Hist. Lit. P. i. p. 66.

• David Blondellus in Apologiâ de Episcop. et Presbyt. Vid. Testimonia præfixa Minuc. Felic. ex editione Jacob. Gronov. Ludg. Bat. 1709.

d Works of Walter Moyle, Esq. vol. ii. p. 84. See also vol. i. p. 389. e Diss. iii. sect. 16. p. 35.

See Discourse, &c. sect. 20. p. 56.

8 Audio eos turpissimæ pecudis caput asini consecratum, nescio quà persuasione, venerari. Minuc. Fel. cap. 9. p. 55. et cap. 28. p. 143. ed. Davis. Cantabr. 1712. h Vid. Tertullian, Apolog. cap. 16. p. 17. D.