who are curious may consult Beveridge, P Daillé, a Turner, Sam. Basnage, and also James Basnage: which last says, that some of them are ancient, others not older than the seventh century. Not now particularly to mention any

S

more authors.

2. The 85th canon contains a catalogue of the books of the Old and New Testament: I take only the latter part of it. But our sacred books, that is, of the New Testament, are the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; fourteen epistles of Paul; two epistles of Peter; three of John; one of James; one of Jude; two epistles of Clement; and the Constitutions inscribed to you bishops, by me Clement, in eight books; which ought not to be divulged before all, because of the mystical things in them; and the Acts of us the Apostles.'

3. Upon this canon I need not say any thing more than that it is not ancient, or drawn up till after the end of the third century; which I think will appear from the following observations.

(1.) The epistle to the Hebrews was rejected, or doubted of, by many in the first three centuries, and also in the fourth century but if this canon had been then in being, and acknowledged as apostolical, that epistle would have been received by all.

(2.) Several of the catholic epistles, that of James, the second of Peter, the second and third of John, and that of Jude, were rejected, or doubted of by many, in the early times of christianity: whereas they would have been rejected by all if this canon had been in being, and had been acknowledged to be apostolical. Mill" has already argued in this manner, and I think invincibly.

Codex Canon. Illustrat.

p. 581-593.

Canonum, qui Apostolici usurpantur, non Clementem Rom. non Alexandrinum, sed anonymum quinto seculo collectorem fuisse existimamus. Qui, corrasis complurium synodorum decretis, seculis secundo, tertio, quarto labentibus congregatarum, synodicon confecit suum. Ann. 300. n. 14. Vid. et 15-17. * On peut ajouter à ce recueil les Canones des Apôtres, dont quelques uns sont assez anciens, et les autres ne sont fait qu'au septième siècle. Hist. de l'Egl. 1. ix. c. 7. n. 5.

t

Και αἱ Διαταγαι ύμιν τους επισκόποις δι' εμε Κλημεντος εν οκτω βιβλίοις προσπεφωνημέναι, άς & χρη δημοσιεύειν επι παντων, δια τα εν αυταίς μυτικα και αἱ Πράξεις ήμων των αποτολων. Can. 85.

Unde constat, canonem 85 ex his qui Apostolici dicuntur, in quo epistola Jacobi, cæteræque supra memoratæ inter canonicas recensentur, haud genuinum esse, neque primis sæculis exstitisse.--Certe, si canon iste mox ab initio exstitisset, ecclesiæ ab epostolis fundatæ epistolas isto canone approbatas nequâquam repudiâssent, aut in dubium vocâssent. Proleg. n. 201.

(3.) The Revelation was received by many in the second and third, and following centuries; which it would not have been, if there had been a canon composed by the apostles, or Clement their companion, in which all other books of scripture were distinctly enumerated, and that omitted.

Baronius has very good observations, in my opinion, upon this 85th, or last canon of the apostles. How could so many of the Latin and Greek writers, says he, receive the Revelation, which was wanting in an apostolical canon? And how could there have been such different opinions about the epistle to the Hebrews, and several of the catholic epistles, if they had been made canonical by any apostolical decree.

(4.) The first epistle of Clement was reckoned canonical by a very few, if any of the writers of the first three centuries: therefore this pretended apostolical canon, which placeth it among books of sacred scripture, was not in being. (5.) The second epistle, called 'Clement's, was not esteemed his in the third century; and that it is not a genuine work of his, has been clearly shown.

X

W

(6.) The Constitutions are never reckoned among canonical books of scripture by any writers of the first three centuries.

(7.) Finally, the silence here enjoined with regard to the Constitutions, because of the mystical things' contained in them, is another argument, that this canon was not drawn up in the early days of christianity. For the Disciplina Arcani, or Doctrine of Arcanism, has no countenance from the authentic books of the New Testament: and was also unknown to Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Minucius Felix, and other primitive christian writers; who declare freely, and without reserve, before all the world, the principles of religion, and their method of worship; as has been often observed by learned men of late times. And, I pray, why is this reserve enjoined, with regard to the Constitutions only? Are there no mysteries' in any other books here mentioned? And are there not in the Constitutions many directions given to the laity, and to all men in general? Are they not at the beginning inscribed to all who from among the Gen

6

▾ Rursum vero, quod ad novissimum illum canonem spectat, quâ libri canonici recensentur; ecquis unquam antiquorum Latinorum atque Græcorum adnumerare inter canonicos libros præsumsisset Apocalypsim, quam scîsset in apostolorum canone prætermissam, qui vel saltem causam aliquam ejusmodi silentii non adduxisset }- -Vel quid quod cum de his frequens inter patres oborta sit controversia, nemo penitus reperiatur, qui ejusmodi canonis vel saltem obiter meminerit? Ann. 102. n. 15, 16.

1. iii. c. 38. et Hieron. de. V. I. cap. 15.

w Vid. Euseb. H. E. * See vol. ii. p. 33-35.

'tiles have believed in Jesus Christ?' There must have been some particular reason for this caution. And possibly this may be as probable a reason as any, that the composer of this canon, who was either the author, or at least a great favourer of the Constitutions, being conscious of their novelty, inserted this caution with a view to evade, or weaken, the argument against their genuineness and authority, taken from the silence of antiquity about them. I place at the bottom of the page any observation of Archbishop Usher to the like purpose.

Upon the whole, I think, these observations demonstrate the late date of this canon, and that it had not a being in the first three centuries, or for some time after. Consequently it deserves not the regard of christians now, who are willing to be determined by evidence.

CHAP. LXXXVI.

6

RHETICIUS, BISHOP OF AUTUN.

RHETICIUS," or Reticius, bishop of Autun,' says Jerom, was a man of great note in Gaul, in the time of the emperor • Constantine. There are extant his Commentaries upon the 'Canticles, and another large work against the Novatians. Nor have I met with any other writings of his.'

2. Rheticius was mentioned by usb formerly, in the history of the Donatists. He was one of the Gallican bishops appointed by Constantine to hear Cæcilian and them, in a

Ita enim bipedum nequissimus, qui Clementis personam (quinto post excessum ipsius sæculo) induit, Constitutionibus a seipso interpolatis, et in aliam pene speciem transformatis, canonicam auctoritatem conciliare conatus est: ea tamen ad mysterium iniquitatis suæ celandum cautione adhibità, ut cas nullo modo divulgandas-præciperet. Ex quibus et Albaspinæus [Obs. 1. i. c. 13.] recte observavit, Constitutiones hasce primis seculis factas non esse; cum primi seculi christiani sua lubentes mysteria, ut vel ex Justino constat, enuntiarent. Usser. Proleg. seu Diss. Ignat. cap. vi. fin.

* Rheticius, Æduorum, id est, Augustodunensis episcopus, sub Constantino celeberrimæ famæ habitus est in Galliis. Leguntur ejus Commentarii in Cantica Canticorum, et aliud grande volumen adversus Novatianum. Nec præter hæc quidquam ejus operum reperi. De V. I. cap. 82.

b See Vol. iii, ch. lxvii. num. ii. 2.

c Vid. Euseb. H. E. l. x. c. 5. p. 39. et Optat. l. i. c. 13.

council at Rome in 313. He was also present at the council of Arles, relating to the same cause, in 314.

3. Rheticius's Commentary upon the Canticles is mentioned by Jerom in some of his letters. I shall place a part of what he says below. He owns, that there was somewhat agreeable in the style; but says, the work was of little use for assisting men to understand the sacred author. He mentions some trifling thoughts: and blames Rheticius for not having first consulted Origen, and other interpreters, before he attempted to write a commentary himself.

4. Rheticius is mentioned by Augustine in his writings against the Pelagians. He speaks of him as a man of great repute in his time, and has twice quoted a passage of his concerning baptism, as favouring the doctrine of original

Ob hoc et ego obsecro, et tu ut petas plurimum quæso, ut tibi beati Rheticii Augustodunensis episcopi Commentarios ad describendum largiatur, in quibus Canticum Canticorum sublimi ore disseruit. Ad Florent. ep. 4. [al. 6.] T. iv. p. 6. in.

Nuper quum Rheticii Augustodunensis episcopi, qui quondam a Constantino imperatore sub Silvestro episcopo ob causam Montensium missus est Romam, Commentarios in Canticum Canticorum perlegissem,―vehementer miratus sum, virum eloquentem, præter ineptias sensuum cæterorum, Tharsis urbem putâsse Tarsum, in quâ Paulus apostolus natus sit.—Innumerabilia sunt, quæ in illius mihi Commentariis sordere visa sunt. Est quidem sermo compositus, et Gallicano cothurno fluens. Sed quid ad interpretem, cujus professio est, non quo ipse disertus appareat, sed quo eum, qui lecturus est, sic faciat intelligere, quomodo ipse intellexit qui scripsit? Rogo, non habuerat Originis volumina? non interpretes cæteros? non certe aliquos necessarios Hebræorum, ut aut interrogaret, aut legeret, quid sibi vellent quæ ignorabat ? Sed tam male videtur existimâsse de cæteris, ut nemo possit de ejus erroribus judicare. Frustra ergo a me ejusdem viri Commentarios postulas, quum mihi in illis displiceant multo plura, quam placeant, &c. Ad Marcell. Ep. 133. [al. ep. 10.] inter criticas. T. ii. p. 662, 624.

f Rheticium ab Augustoduno episcopum magnæ auctoritatis in ecclesiâ tempore episcopatus sui, gesta illa ecclesiastica nobis indicant, quando in urbe Româ, Melchiade apostolicæ sedis episcopo præsidente, cum aliis judex interfuit, Donatumque damnavit, qui prior auctor Donatistarum schismatis fuit, et Cæcilianum episcopum ecclesiæ Carthaginensis absolvit. Is cum de baptismo ageret, ita locutus est: Hanc igitur principalem esse in ecclesiâ indulgentiam, neminem præteriit, in quâ antiqui criminis omne pondus exponimus, 'et ignorantiæ nostræ facinora prisca delemus, ubi et veterem hominem cum ingenitis sceleribus exuimus.' Audis antiqui criminis pondus.' Audis prisca facinora.' Audis cum sceleribus ingenitis hominem veterem.' Et audes adversus hæc ruinosam construere novitatem? Contr. Julian. Pelagian. 1. i. cap. iii. n. 7. T. 10. P. i.

Si vis agnoscere vetustatem, ex quâ parvuli christianâ gratiâ renovantur, audi fideliter quod ait homo Dei Rheticius ab Augustoduno episcopus, qui cum Melchiade Romano episcopo quondam judex sedit, Donatumque damnavit hæreticum. Hic enim, cum de christiano baptismate loqueretur, ' Hanc ' igitur,' inquit, principalem esse in ecclesià indulgentium.'-Addisne, non postea perpetrata, sed etiam ingenita scelera veteris hominis?' Numquid Manichæus fuit iste Rheticius? Op. Imperf. 1. i. cap. cv. T. 10. P. 2.

sin. But it does not appear whence that passage is taken: whether from one of the books mentioned by Jerom, or from some other work, or from the debates in one of the councils above taken notice of

5. I have thought it best to give some account of this eminent bishop and commentator, who flourished at the beginning of the fourth century, though his writings are not now extant. And I refer my readers to some learned moderns, whom they may consult, if they think fit.

CHAP. LXXXVII.

TRIPHYLLIUS.

1. TRIPHYLLIUS bishop of a city in Cyprus about the year 340, and afterwards, was a man of great repute for eloquence in the time of the emperor Constantius, as we learn from Jerom, whose article I place at length below. He assures us that Triphyllius wrote a Commentary upon the Canticles, which he had read, and divers other works, which he had not met with. Triphyllius is likewise placed by Jerom among other eminent christian writers in his letter to Magnus.

d

6

2. Suidas in his Lexicon says: Triphyllius, a bishop, and disciple of Spyridion of Cyprus who wrought many 'miracles, wrote an account of our holy father Spyridion.' It is not unlikely, that this may be one of the many works of Triphyllius, which Jerom had not met with.

3. Sozomen relates divers things of Spyridion, or Spyridon, which are not very easy to be credited. One story however may be true enough; it is to this purpose. There

Vid. Cav. H. L. T. i. p. 173. Fabr. ad Hieron. de V. I. cap. 82. Du Pin, Bib. T. ii. p. 26. Tillem. Mem. Ec. T. vi. Les Donatistes. Art. 12. a Vid. Cav. H. L. T. i. p. 206. Fabr. Bib. Ec. ad Hieron, de V. I. cap. 92. Triphyllius, Cypri Ledrensis, sive Leucotheon, episcopus, eloquentissimus suæ ætatis, et sub rege Constantio celeberrimus fuit. Legi ejus in Cantica Canticorum commentarios. At multa alia composuisse fertur, quæ in nostras manus minime pervenerunt. De Vir. Ill. cap. 92. libri-et Triphyllii Cyprii. Ep. 83. T. iv. p. 656.

e

Exstat et

4 V. Τριφυλλιος.

-και Τριφύλλιον τον Λεδρων επισκοπον ανδρα αλλως τε ελλογιμον, και δια νόμων ασκησιν πολυν χρονον εν τη Βερυτίων πολει διατρίψαντα.