Καὶ πολλοί τινες και πολλαὶ, εξηκοντα) C ἑβδομη κοίται, οἱ ἐκ παίδων ἐμαθηὔθησαν τῷ Χριστῷ, ἄφ Bogor 21μévovo. Et multi fexus utriufque, et fexaginta et feptuaginta nati annos, qui à pueris difciplinam Chrifti funt affectati, incorrupti permanent. Juftin Apol. i. 22. ed. Th. aplogo, impolluti, expertes veneris, etiam legitima. Qui inviolati corporis virginitate perpetua fruuntur, says Minucius, c. xxxi.

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

AMONGST the Apoftolical writers fome have placed the author of the EPISTLE to DIOGNETUS, which has been ufually ascribed to Justin Martyr: See Fabric. Bibl. Gr. v. 58. Tillemont (Hift. Eccl. ii. p. 493.) first declared that he was inclined, for fome reasons, to think it more ancient, and written before A. D. 70. He fays also that a learned man, whom he names not, had been of that opinion. The laft Editor of Justin thinks that they are mistaken, as to the antiquity of this Epiftle, and is in doubt whether it should be afcribed to Juftin or no. Præf. p. lxxiv. Baratier gives it to Clemens Romanus, and Mr. Whiston to Timothy. In this Epiftle there are many allufions to the New Teftament, which Mr. Whifton has marked in the margin

of

of his Tranflation, and there is nothing faid concerning any miraculous powers and gifts amongst Christians. It is opus eximium et præftantiffimum, fays the Benedictin Editor, and Baratier and Mr. Whifton are of the fame opinion. Diognetus, who is called xpar150s, was, we may fuppofe, if he really exifted, a man of fome rank. His Honour wanted to be informed of the nature of Christianity, and why this new religion was not made known fooner, and for what reasons the Chriftians expofed themselves to perfecution and to death, neglecting the things of this world, and rejecting the religions of the Greeks and of the Jews. To thefe 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; fo that Diognetus, if he had been morofe and cenforious, would have concluded, that this writer had found a new religion, but had loft fomething else. One would think that the Apologift would have mentioned the prophecies of the Old Teftament accomplished in Christ, the miracles of Chrift and of his Apoftles, and other proofs of the truth and importance of Chriftianity. Not at all. He begins with setting forth the folly of worshiping 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, fays he, though they worship one God, yet offer him facrifices, as if he stood in

need of fuch gifts, and were to be fed with the steam of victims; they are alfo fuperftitious obfervers of the difference between food clean and unclean, of the fabbath, of circumcifion, fasts, feafts, new moons, etc. Therefore we Chriftians reject the Jewish religion.

What he says on this head is not only too fevere 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 Mofaic Law. The fame defect may be obferved in fome arguments of Arnobius upon the fame fubject.

Then he proceeds to obferve that Chriftians were examples of all that was good, and patient under afflictions and ill ufage; that God fent his Son to fuffer for men, to redeem, and to inftruct them, who, before he came, knew not God, and who were grown very wicked; all which, if intended as a fufficient proof of Christianity, was little better than begging the question.

He speaks of the Jews, as if at that time they offered up facrifices, whence fome learned men have concluded that he wrote before the deftruction of Jerufalem; but the argument is fcarcely conclufive, efpecially, when we confider what fort of a writer we have to do with. Sacrificia quidem, fays the Benedictin, Judai offerre defierunt poft urbis et templi excidia. Sed tamen cum author epiftola quid interfit Judæos inter et Chriftianos exponat, non immerito in Fudæis afpernatur cruenta illa animalium facrificia, quæ et Judaici cultus pars erant infignis, et fibi

per

per vim erepta Judæi, fi minus ufu, faltem animo et voluntate retinebant. Pluribus aliis contigit Judæos eodem modo exagitare. S. Phileas Martyr de Judais fic loquitur, Ad. Mart. p. 444. "Solis Judæis præceptum fuerat facrificare Deo. • Joli in ferofolyma. Nunc autem peccant fuso dai in locis aliis folemnia fua celebrantes, etc. Præf. p. 75

66

I cannot believe that this Epistle was written by Juftin Martyr; for Juftin would have managed the argument better, and have omitted neither the prophecies, nor the miracles. The Author feems to have been fome Gentile converted to Christianity, who had perused Juftin's Cohortatio ad Græcos.

Juftin begins it thus : Αρχόμ@ & πρὸς ὑμᾶς το αινέσεως, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἕλληνες, εὔχομαι τῷ Θεῷ ἐμοὶ μὲ ὑπάρξαι, τα δέοντα πρὸς ὑμᾶς εἰπεῖν· ὑμᾶς ὃ, τῆς προτέρας αφεμένες φιλονεικίας, καὶ τὸ τῶν προγόνων πλάτης ἀπαλλαγέντας, ἐλέους τὰ λυσιτελόνα νωί. Cohortationem apud vos, Græci, inftituens, Deum precor, ut mihi quidem apud vos, ut par eft, dicere contingat; vos autem priftinam pertinaciam relinquentes, et a majorum difcedentes errore, quæ utilia funt in præfentia eligatis. This is an imitation of the exordium in the oration of DemoAthenes for Ctesiphon; and as Juftin imitates Demofthenes, fo the writer of the Epiftle imitates Jufting, το Θεό, τὸ καὶ τὸ λέγον καὶ τὸ ακόν ἡμῖν χωρηγείτο, αἰτῶμαι δοθῆναι ἐμοὶ μὲ εἰπεῖν ὕτως, ὡς μάλισα ἂν ἀκεσαί [ακέσανά] σε βελτίω γυ τους ζοί τε [5] ὅπως ἀκεσαι, ὡς μὴ λυπηθῆναι τὸ εἰπόνα. Peto a Deo, qui et loquendi et audiendi nobis

Q3

nobis facultatem fuppeditat, ut ab eo detur, mihi quidem, ita verba facere ut in primis contingat, te, poftquam audieris, meliorem evadere; et tibi, ita audire, ut triftitia non afficiatur is qui verba fecerit.

This is faid well enough:

amphora capit

Inftitui; currente rota, cur urceus exit ? The Epifle has a few chafms, but there feems to be only a little of it that is loft. It was perhaps an Exercife, or Declamation, addreffed to a great man, with whom the author had no acquaintance; as fome modern Epiftles to the Pope, and to Lewis the fourteenth, which were never presented.

As I have had occafion to mention Tillemont, and fhall probably often cite him hereafter, I take this opportunity to own my obligations to him for his useful and laborious collections. After this due refpect and acknowledgment, I hope it will be permitted to make a few obfervations which may do others fome good, and can now do him no harm, nor detroy the peace which I believe he enjoys in a better world.

His Hiftory of the Emperors is very valuable; but he has filled his other books with an account of trifling, abfurd, ridiculous miracles.

He never affirms facts without vouchers, but he often makes ufe of bad ones in his Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, and builds upon a fandy foundation, upon the teftimony of forgers, fanatics,