Some things in the form of this Dialogue may seem exceptionable.

In the entrance of his discourse, the author observes, that Cæcilius was converted from Paganism by the arguments of Octavius. It is not แ according to the truth of art" that the result of the controversy should be thus anticipated.

That Minucius, a Christian proselyte, should have been chosen umpire in such a controversy, is singular. In apology for this, it may be said, that Minucius could not have related the arguments of his two friends on a subject so momentous in its nature and consequences, and yet have supposed himself an unconcerned and silent bystander; that as little could he, with propriety, have seconded the reasoning of Octavius against a single antagonist; and therefore, that he took to himself the only part in

which he could act at all.

That Cæcilius speaks under so many discordant characters, is an obvious defect in the Dialogue; for the Academic philosopher, who suddenly assumes the garb of an Epicurean, and then becomes the champion of popular superstitions, will hardly be thought serious in any character, and will not much interest his hearers.

But indeed there was a sort of necessity for imposing inconsistent tasks on Cæcilius. Had the speakers been an Academic, an Epicurean, a bigoted Heathen, and a Christian Philosopher, the Dialogue, if fairly conducted, would have been full of intricacy and perplexities.

There are also exceptionable things in the Christian's argument. Thus, for instance, the observations on the sign or mark of the cross, which Minucius imprudently borrowed from other Apologists, are puerile and trifling; and

J

his system with respect to the agency of demons is in many particulars reprehensible. Concerning the gods of the heathens, he advances inconsistent opinions; for sometimes he supposes them to be deified heroes, and sometimes to be evil and reprobated spirits: and, to give but one instance more, "the intelligent fire" [sapiens ignis], in his description of future punishments, is a phrase altogether extravagant.

Candour, however, will overlook many such

blemishes, if the work in general be fair and elegant and indeed, were no human allowIances to be made, how few writers are there who could escape censure; for how few writers are there, especially of those on popular subjects, who have not asserted, or at least who have not transcribed opinions puerile, trifling, reprehensible, contradictory, and even extravagant.

Every one who understands the original must

acknowledge the merits of the work of Minucius. For method, in particular, it is a masterpiece. The Cæcilius in this Dialogue is not "the very legitimate and obsequious puppet" ridiculed in Miscellaneous Reflections, § 67, for he argues copiously and firmly: and had the noble author of the Miscellaneous Reflections, out of the abundance of his "good humour," undertaken to defend Polytheism and revile the Christians, he could hardly have acquitted himself with better abilities than the Heathen of Minucius has done.

Wherever the knowledge of the Latin tongue reaches, and wherever a just estimate is made of the dignity and value of Christian morals, the Christian aphorisms of Minucius must be

admired. Such as, 66 Nos mutuo amore diligimus, quoniam odisse non novimus;-Nec de fato quisquam, aut solatium captet, aut excuset

eventum ;- Qui potest pauper esse, qui non eget, qui non inhiat alieno, qui Deo dives est ?-Apud nos religiosior est ille qui justior ;—Non habitu sapientiam, sed mente præferimus; non eloquimur magna, sed vivimus."

The only manuscript of Minucius hitherto discovered, is that in the Library of the King of France. Being incorrect, and written with many perplexing abbreviations, it has afforded exercise for the conjectures of critics. Notwithstanding all those conjectures, there still remain in Minucius some passages very obscure, and others altogether inexplicable.