Supreme God, the father of all. This was urged against the trinitarians who made a Second God of Chrift; and it is urged by Peter against Simon, saying, "He ought to "be rejected, who even liftens to any thing "against the monarchy of God *." Cotelerius fays, that there are interpolations of Arians in this work. But if there be any fuch, they have efcaped my notice. There is, however, a pretty evident interpolation of fome trinitarian in it, viz. in the doxology. "Thine is the eternal

66

praife, and glory [to the Father, to the "Son, and to the Holy Spirit] for ever, "Amen +." That the words inclosed in brackets are an interpolation, is evident, not only from their holding a language entirely different from that of the whole work, but from the aukwardnefs and incoherence with which they are introduced, after a pronoun in the fingular number. viz. thine. The interpolater would have

* Αξιος εν της αποβολης πας καλα της τε θες μοναρχίας αύτο μόνον

και ακεσαι τι τοιδίον θέλησας. Hom. 3. fect. 9. p. 636.
† Σε γαρ εσιν δόξα αιώνιος, ύμνος
εις τὲς συμπανία; αιώνας . άμην.

K 4

[πατρι, και νιω, και αγιω πνευματι] Hom. 3. fect. 72. p. 650.

-concealed

concealed his design better, if he had writ¬ ten together with the Son and Spirit. It will be seen in its proper place, that this form of doxology, in which glory is given to the Holy Spirit, was complained of as an innovation in the time of Bafil, and that it was altogether unknown before the council of Nice.

The philofophical opinions that appear to have been held by the author of the Clementines and Recognitions are abfurd enough, but they were thofe of the age in which they were written, and, therefore, require no particular apology. He confidered God as being in the form of man* But this is an opinion that is generally afcribed to the Jews, as we may see in the works of Agobard + ‡. It is alfo well

known to have been the opinion of Melito, the christian bishop of Sardis, and from him Tertullian is thought to have derived the fame notion. Indeed, this Anthropomorphitifm, Beaufobre fhews to have been common in the chriftian church *. The thing that is moft objectionable in the conduct of this work is, that the writer thought artifice might be fafely employed to promote a good cause, and he exemplifies this principle in a curious manner. But this dangerous maxim was generally admitted by the philofophers of that age. All the use that I would now make of this work is to exhibit the principles of the oriental philofophy, as held by one who did not profess christianity, that they may be compared with those of the chriftian Gnoftics, which I shall now proceed to explain,

retur.

ginem Dei factum, excepto quod ille digitos manuum habeat inflexibiles ac rigentes, utpote qui nihil manibus opeSedere autem more terreni allicujus regis in folio, quod a quatuor circumferatur beftiis, & magno quamvis palatio contineri. De Judaicis Superftitionibus, p. 75. *Hiftoire de Manicheifme, vol. 1. p. 501.

No

No inconfiderable argument for the antiquity of the Clementines may be drawn from the writer of them fuppofing that Chrift preached only one year, which I have fhewn to have been the opinion of the ancients in general, and which, from the circumstances of the gofpel hiftory, must be the truth; as I think I have proved in the Differtations prefixed to my Harmony of the Gospels, and in my Letters to the bishop of Waterford. "If Chrift," fays Peter, in his difputation with Simon," appeared "and converfed only in vifion, why did

he, as a teacher, converfe a whole year "with his difciples, who were awake * ?"

* Ει τις δε δι' οπλασίαν προς διδασκαλίαν σοφιθῆναι δυναται· καὶ ει μεν ερεις δυνατον εσιν: δια τι ολω ενιαύω εγρηγοροσιν παραμένων wandevo didaσnárC Hom. 17. fect. 19. p. 736.

CHAP.

Of the Principles of the Chriftian Gnoftics.

NOTWITHSTANDING the extreme repugnance between the principles of the oriental philofophy, and those of christianity, many perfons who were addicted to that philosophy, were likewise so much impreffed with the evidence of the divine miffion of Christ, that they could not refuse to believe it; and yet, being strongly attached to their former principles, they endeavoured to retain both. Nor can it be doubted but that they were very fincere in their profesfion. Indeed, in that age there was no external temptation for any man to become a christian. Simon Magus was tempted with the fight of the miracles which Peter wrought, and especially his power of communicating the Holy Spirit; but it would foon be evident, that this was a gift that could not be exercised at pleasure, and therefore could not answer the purpose of any pretended converts; and wealth and

I